Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VIDRIO, Nadia - Verbal Morphology in The Karaite Treatise On Hebrew Grammar
VIDRIO, Nadia - Verbal Morphology in The Karaite Treatise On Hebrew Grammar
Uploaded by
Oscar Javier Perez GaonaOriginal Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Report this DocumentCopyright:
Available Formats
VIDRIO, Nadia - Verbal Morphology in The Karaite Treatise On Hebrew Grammar
VIDRIO, Nadia - Verbal Morphology in The Karaite Treatise On Hebrew Grammar
Uploaded by
Oscar Javier Perez GaonaCopyright:
Available Formats
Verbal Morphology in the
Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar
Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa
al-#Ibrāniyya
Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval
Fondées par
Georges Vajda
Dirigées par
Paul B. Fenton
TOME LI
Cambridge Genizah Studies Series
Edited by
Siam Bhayro, University of Exeter
Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge
Ben Outhwaite, Cambridge University Library
VOLUME 2
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ejm.
Verbal Morphology in the
Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar
Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa
al-#Ibrāniyya
By
Nadia Vidro
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Vidro, Nadia.
Verbal morphology in the Karaite treatise on Hebrew grammar Kitab al-'Uqud fi tasarif
al-luga al-'Ibraniyya / by Nadia Vidro.
p. cm. – (Etudes sur le Judaisme medieval, ISSN 0169-815X ; t. 51) (Cambridge genizah
studies series ; v. 2)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-21424-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Abu al-Faraj Harun ibn al-Faraj, 11th
cent. 'Uqud fi tasarif al-lughah al-'Ibraniyah. 2. Hebrew language–Study and teaching–Karaim
speakers–Early works to 1500. 3. Hebrew language–Grammar. 4. Hebrew language–Verb. 5.
Hebrew language–Morphology. I. Title. II. Series.
PJ4912.H373V57 2011
492.4'5–dc23
2011025084
ISSN 0169-815X
ISBN 978 90 04 21424 8
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
To my family
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Transcription Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter One. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.. History of the Karaite Grammatical Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.. Aims of the Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter Two. Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya . . . . . . . . 5
.. Reconstruction of the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
.. Author and Title of Kitāb al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
.. Contents of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
.. Nature of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
.. Sources of Kitāb al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
.. Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter Three. The Method of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
.. The Concept of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
.. Development of the Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
.. Division of Symbols into Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
... Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the
Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
... Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the
Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
... Arrangement of Symbols and Conjugational
Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
.. The Extension of the System of Symbols in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
and Me"or #Ayin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
... Widening of the Range of Forms Accounted for
within the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
... Modification of the Approach to Verbal Derivation 39
... Principles of Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
... Conjugational Patterns Introduced for a
Combination of Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
.. Morphological Value of Symbols and Conjugational
Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
viii contents
Chapter Four. Description of a Conjugational Pattern in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
.. Sets of Forms of Sample Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
.. Lists of Structurally Identical Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
.. Tables of Forms with Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter Five. Symbols and Conjugational Patterns in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
.. Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the Imperative and
the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
... Symbol à á ä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
... Symbol épb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
... Symbol úT"t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
... Symbol ì òeÖ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
... Symbol ïðÇk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
... Symbol äTé!Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
... Symbol ä ì Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
... Symbol Çøé!Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
... Symbol ä k î . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
... Symbol ä á à . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
... Symbol é!ì ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
... Symbol _U a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
.. Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the Imperative and
the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
... Symbol á ñ î . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
... Symbol ä@ ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
... Symbol éD ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
... Symbol òK a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
... Symbol éX t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter Six. Morphological Theories in Kitāb al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
.. Status of Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
... Radicals vs. Non-radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
... Root, Auxiliary, Built-in and Affixed Letters . . . . . . . . . 106
.. Principles of Verbal Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
.. Analysis of Individual Verb Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
... Hiph#il Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
... Hitpa#el Verbs with the Assimilation of the Prefix
Taw into the First Radical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
contents ix
... Final Heh Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
... Third Guttural Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
... Middle Weak Verbs in Pa#al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
... Passive Imperative Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
... Pausal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
... Instances of Babylonian Type Vocalization . . . . . . . . . . 131
... Final Aleph Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
... First Nun, First Yod (Original First Waw) and
Similar Verbs in Pa#al (‘Imperatives Which Do not
Have a Past Form’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
... Forms of Pronominal Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Chapter Seven. Rules of Derivational Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
.. Definition and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
.. Corpus of Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
.. The Structure of Rules of Derivational Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
.. Rules of Derivational Relations vs. Other Remarks on
Verbal Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
.. Rules of Derivational Relations and the System of Symbols 152
.. Rules of Derivational Relations and Binyanim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
.. Function of Rules of Derivational Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
.. Relationship between the Material in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and
Me"or #Ayin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Chapter Eight. Pedagogical Strategies in Kitāb al-#Uqūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
.. Lucidity of Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
.. Choice of Verbs Included in the Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
.. Didactic Elements in Pattern Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
.. Capturing Regularities in Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
.. Mnemonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
... Mnemonics Based on Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
... Mnemonics Based on Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
... Mnemonics Based on Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
... Classification of Sample Imperatives by Mnemonics 172
.. Algorithms of Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
... Algorithms for Establishing Imperative Bases . . . . . . . 173
... Algorithms for Determining Nuclear Components
of Complex Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
.. Model Analyses of Biblical Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
x contents
Chapter Nine. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Classmark Abbreviations:
II Firk. the second Firkovitch Collection in the National Library of Russia,
St. Petersburg
FEA II Firk. Evr.-Arab.
T-S Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection in the Cambridge University
Library, Cambridge, UK
Mosseri Jacques Mosseri Genizah Collection, presently in the Cambridge
University Library, Cambridge, UK
JTS ENA Genizah Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York,
USA
BL British Library Genizah Collection, London, UK
Bodl. The Bodleian Library Genizah Collection, Oxford, UK
TRANSCRIPTION GUIDE
. Judaeo-Arabic
Consonants
Judaeo- Judaeo-
Arabic Arabic Transcription Arabic Arabic Transcription
®
à "* ö d.
á b U è t.
®
ú t è z.
®
ú t ò #
® ¯
â j â ġ
ç h.
ô f
®
ë h ÷ q
˘
ã d ë k
®
ã d ì l
¯
ø r î m
æ z ð n
ñ s ä h
ù š å w
ö s. é y
* (initial alif is not represented)
Long Vowels
Judaeo-
Arabic Arabic Transcription
à ā
å ū
é ı̄
xiv transcription guide
Short Vowels
fatha
. a
kasra i
damma
. u
. Hebrew
Consonants
à "* ì l
a b î m
á b ð n
¯
â g ñ s
ã d ò #
ä h t p
å w ô p̄
æ z ö s.
ç h. ÷ q
è t. ø r
é y Ö š
k k × s
ë k ú t
¯
* (initial aleph is not represented)
Only the fricative bkp of the bgd kpt set are distinguished with diacritics.
Hebrew grammatical terms commonly used in English are given in their
usual form, e.g. dagesh rather than dageš, aleph rather than alep̄, samekh
rather than samek.
¯
transcription guide xv
Vowels
Vowel length is not represented. The transcription of hateph
. vowels is
identical with that of their full counterparts and is not given in the table
below.
qamas. , patah. a hireq
. i
s. ere, segol e shuruq, qubbus. u
holam
. o vocalic shewa e
qamas. qat. an o
PREFACE
The present volume is dedicated to an anonymous medieval Karaite trea-
tise on Hebrew grammar Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya
composed in the middle of the th century. This hitherto unpublished
work includes one of the most complete Karaite accounts of the verbal
system of Biblical Hebrew. It is, furthermore, an important source for
the study of didactic strategies applied by medieval Karaites in teaching
grammar. The present volume is restricted to the reconstruction of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd from unpublished manuscripts and a study of grammatical the-
ories and didactic tools as they are reflected in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and other
Karaite works on verbal morphology. A critical edition and translation
of Kitāb al-#Uqūd will be published separately.
This book is based on my PhD thesis written at the University of Cam-
bridge, St. Edmund’s College. I am indebted to the Cambridge Overseas
Trust and the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation for sponsoring my stud-
ies and making this research possible. My heartfelt thanks goes to my
supervisor Professor Geoffrey Khan who introduced me into the world
of Karaite grammarians and whose continuous support, encouragement
and interest in my work were invaluable. I also owe gratitude to my thesis
examiners Professor Judith Olszowy-Schlanger and Dr. Ben Outhwaite
for their comments and advice regarding the possible lines of extension
of my research.
I thank the staff of the manuscript collections I have consulted: the
second Firkovitch Collection in the National Library of Russia, St. Peters-
burg; Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection in the Cambridge Univer-
sity Library, Cambridge, UK; Genizah Collection of the Jewish Theo-
logical Seminary, New York, USA; British Library Genizah Collection,
London, UK; The Bodleian Library Genizah Collection, Oxford, UK; and
the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem, Israel.
Nadia Vidro
Cambridge
chapter one
INTRODUCTION1
.. History of the Karaite Grammatical Tradition2
The discipline of Hebrew grammar was considered by Karaite thinkers
to be of great importance for the study of the Bible, the main source of
authority of the Karaites. The Karaite lexicographer David ben Abraham
al-Fāsı̄ (first half of the th century) wrote in the introduction to his
dictionary Kitāb Jāmi# al-Alfāz. :
… anyone contemplating to write some commentary on the Books of the
Scriptures should not be rash in his interpretations, but master first the
grammatical rules, inflections, the causes for change of accents, and the
syntax of the language, as well as its correct use in speech. This would
stimulate thinking, enhance knowledge, do away with indolence, awaken
the soul, and inspire one to the search of knowledge.
[Skoss (–:I, LXXVIII);
translated in Olszowy-Schlanger (:)]
It is, thus, not surprising that an independent linguistic tradition devel-
oped early in the history of the Karaite movement with its adherents pro-
ducing works in the areas of grammar, lexicography and phonetics.
Karaite grammatical thought appears to have originated in the th or
even the th century in Iraq and Iran and reached the peak of its develop-
ment in the th century in Jerusalem. It had its roots in Masoretic and
Rabbinic literature, as well as in the Arabic tradition of grammar.
The Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar can be divided into two
periods, namely the ‘early period’ (till the end of the th–the beginning
of the th century) and the ‘classical period’ (th century) with one
of the most important differences between the two periods being in the
1 This book has been prepared thanks to a project grant from the Spanish Ministerio
de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI–: ‘Lengua y literatura judeo-árabe de la Edad
Media a la Edad Moderna’).
2 This chapter draws heavily on the following recent accounts of the history of
development and scholarly study of the Karaite grammatical tradition: Khan (a:–
, b); Khan, Gallego, Olszowy-Schlanger (:xi–xxxii); Maman (:–).
chapter one
general approach to the discipline of grammar: works extant from the
early period deal with separate difficult issues in the text of the Bible, a
trait that brings them closer to the Masoretic tradition, whereas works
composed in the classical period provide a general description of the
Hebrew language per se. A number of works have survived from the early
period, among them a grammatical Bible commentary entitled Diqduq
(Grammar) or Nukat Diqduq (Points of Grammar) composed by Abū
Ya#qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūh. (second half of the th–beginning of the th
century),3 anonymous treatises on the Hebrew verbs and nouns,4 as well
as a grammatical Bible commentary in Judaeo-Persian.5
The classical period is best represented by the works of a pupil of Ibn
Nūh,
. Abū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj (first half of the th century) who
composed a series of grammatical treatises. These are a detailed analysis
of Hebrew morphology and syntax al-Kitāb al-Muštamil #alā al-Us. ūl wa-
l-Fus. ūl fı̄ al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya (The Comprehensive Book of General Prin-
ciples and Particular Rules of the Hebrew Language, henceforth, al-Kitāb
al-Muštamil)6 and its epitome al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ fı̄ al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya
(The Sufficient Book on the Hebrew Language, henceforth, al-Kitāb al-
Kāfı̄),7 as well as an introductory treatise on grammar entitled Kitāb al-
Madhal ilā #Ilm al-Diqduq fı̄ Turuq . al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya (Book of Intro-
˘ into the Discipline of Careful Investigation of the Ways of the
duction
Hebrew Language) and a lexico-grammatical commentary on the Bible
Tafsı̄r al-Alfāz. al-S. a#ba fı̄ al-Miqra (The Explanation of the Difficult Words
in the Bible).8 Al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ was epitomized twice by an anonymous
contemporary of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.9 The first of these abridgments
is known simply as al-Muhtas. ar (The Abridgment)10 and the second as
˘
3 Edited in Khan (a).
4 Edited in Khan (b, ).
5 Edited in Khan (b).
6 Short fragments of al-Kitāb al-Muštamil have been recently published by N. Basal
(, , ). For studies of various aspects of al-Kitāb al-Muštamil see Basal (,
, ); Maman (b, , , ). A critical edition of al-Kitāb al-Muštamil
is being prepared by A. Maman, see Maman (:–).
7 Edited in Khan et al. ().
8 On this work see Olszowy-Schlanger (); Poznanski (:–).
9 Traditionally, these abridgments were attributed to Abū al-Faraj Hārūn himself (see,
for example, Basal (:); Khan et al. (:xii)). As will be demonstrated in ., this
opinion is not corroborated by textual evidence.
10 A fragment of al-Muhtasar was published by N. Basal (). The passages pub-
.
lished by S. Poznanski (a)˘ as ‘un abrégé du Mouschtamil’ belong neither to al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄ nor to Kitāb al-#Uqūd and must be a part of al-Muhtas. ar.
˘
introduction
Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya (Book of Rules regarding
the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language, henceforth, Kitāb al-
#Uqūd).11 Kitāb al-#Uqūd together with the treatise on the Hebrew nouns
became the basis of Me"or #Ayin (Light of the Eye),12 a grammar book in
Hebrew composed in the second half of the th century, presumably in
Byzantium.
Evidence suggests that both Karaite and Rabbanite grammarians were
not ignorant of the teachings of the other school. Thus, Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn cites in his works some opinions of Yehudah Hayyūj, . while he
himself is mentioned in the works of four Rabbanite authors, namely
Abraham ibn Ezra, Moshe ibn Ezra, Yehudah ibn Bal#am, and Yonah ibn
Janāh. as ‘the grammarian from Jerusalem.’13 As a result of this contact
as well as following the breakdown of the Karaite creativity in the closing
decades of the th century before the destruction of the Jerusalem centre
by the Crusaders14 the Karaite grammatical tradition was supplanted by
the teachings of the Rabbanites by the th century. Although copies
of Karaite grammatical works continued to circulate in the East these
writings appear not to have had much impact on the further development
of the grammatical thought among the Karaites.15
.. Aims of the Present Study
The aim of my research is to reconstruct the second abridgment of
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ entitled Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya
(Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Lan-
guage) and to study the most original part of the treatise constituted by
chapters on the verbal morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Kitāb al-#Uqūd
is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it introduces views of a
new author whose ideas are not found in other texts thus diversifying
our knowledge of Karaite grammarians. Secondly, this treatise contains
one of the most complete Karaite accounts of the verbal system of Bibli-
cal Hebrew based on a characteristically Karaite method of classification
known as ‘the method of symbols.’ The treatise comprises ample material
11 Fragments of Kitāb al-#Uqūd were edited in Hirschfeld (–); Vidro
(b:–).
12 Edited in Zislin ().
13 Bacher (a:–, –).
14 See Ben-Sasson (:); Ben Shammai (:); Erder (:).
15 See Khan (b:); Maman (a:–); Zislin (:).
chapter one
on this method and allows us to answer questions left by less clear expo-
sitions in Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s grammars and Me"or #Ayin.16 Numerous
annotated verbal paradigms supply information to study details of the
author’s morphological theories in comparison with earlier Karaite mor-
phological texts such as the Diqduq, the treatise on the Hebrew verbs
and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. Thirdly, the book is highly pedagogical in nature
and represents a source of knowledge on didactic strategies applied
by medieval Karaites in teaching grammar. Fourthly, Kitāb al-#Uqūd is
important on account of its relationship with other Karaite grammatical
treatises for it occupies an intermediate position between the early gram-
mars and the works of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn on the one hand and Me"or
#Ayin on the other hand so that comparing these books can contribute to
identifying lines of development and transmission of the Karaite gram-
matical tradition.
16 See Becker (); Maman (a).
chapter two
KITĀB AL-#UQŪD FĪ TAS. ĀRĪF AL-LUĠA AL-#IBRĀNIYYA
.. Reconstruction of the Text
In his article ‘An unknown grammatical work by Abul-Faraj Harun’
H. Hirschfeld published the only hitherto identified fragment of Kitāb al-
#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya,1 a Karaite treatise on the grammar
of Biblical Hebrew written in Judaeo-Arabic described by its author as a
second and a particularly concise abridgment of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ by Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj:
® ® ®
àåñ äðî ãàùìà àìà äáàåáà ìîùé àøàöúëà äâììà éô éôàëìà úøöúëà úðë ã÷
® ® ® ®
øëà øöúëî øöúëà ïà ìéàñ ìàñå éôàëìà äðîöúé íì àî úàãàéæìà ïî äéô ìöç àî
® ® ® ® ®
ïåëú àäðî àìîâ äéô ìîâéå óéøàöúìà éô ãå÷ò äéô ã÷òé øåëãîìà øöúëîìà ïî æâåà
® ®
àîî øàöúëàìà éìò íæàò àðààäå ïàîæìà ïî øéñéìà éô áòåúñú àäéìà òâøé àìåöà
® ® ® ®
àãá äðî àì àîéô òñúàå àøéúë äôãç êá ìëé íì äúôãç åì
I had prepared an abridgment of al-Kāfı̄ fı̄ al-Luġa which comprised all its
chapters, with a few exceptions, as well as some additions not included in
al-Kāfı̄. Then someone asked me to write another abridgment even more
concise than the one mentioned above in which the rules pertaining to
conjugations would be established and all conjugations would be brought
together as a basis to which one could refer and which could be studied in
a short time. So I am resolved to compose an abridgment such that if you
wanted to shorten it there will not be much to shorten but I shall discuss
what is absolutely necessary. [BL Or. E, fol. r]
The fragment discovered by H. Hirschfeld in the British Library Genizah
Collection consists of folios and of BL Or. E and contains the
following parts of the treatise: () the title (fol. r); () the beginning of
the introduction (fol. v); () the end of the chapter on words belonging
to one or more parts of speech (fol. r); () the beginning of the chapter
on the conditions for forming morphological patterns (fol. r–v).
Until now it was believed that the above-mentioned fragment was
all that survived of Kitāb al-#Uqūd. However, when working on an
1 Hirschfeld (–:–).
chapter two
anonymous Karaite grammatical treatise copied in Jerusalem and named
in the colophon al-Muhtas. ar I was able to prove its identity with Kitāb
˘
al-#Uqūd.2 The main manuscripts of al-Muhtas. ar are II Firk. Evr.-Arab.
I (henceforth FEA I ),3 and II Firk. ˘ Evr.-Arab. I (hence-
forth FEA I ) preserved in the second Firkovitch Collection in the
National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg. These manuscripts clearly
belong together, FEA I being the continuation of FEA I .
Together they contain the text of al-Muhtas. ar from some place in the
beginning of the treatise to its end (with a˘few lacunae). A comparison of
these manuscripts with BL Or. E reveals that the last six lines of BL
Or. E, fol. v are nearly identical with the first seven lines of FEA I
, fol. r. Moreover, the text of BL Or. E, fol. r–v is contained
in FEA I , fol. v–v with minor variations in wording and orthogra-
phy. These two overlaps indicate that BL Or. E, fol. – and FEA I
and FEA I are fragments of one and the same grammatical
work. This leads to the conclusion that Kitāb al-#Uqūd, which was previ-
ously considered lost except for the fragment published by H. Hirschfeld,
has in fact survived almost entirely and can now be restored. The fact that
BL Or. E, fol. – is entitled Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-
#Ibrāniyya whereas the text in FEA I and FEA I is referred to as
al-Muhtas. ar in the body of the treatise as well as in the colophon of FEA I
˘
should not be regarded as an obstacle to the identification. Indeed,
Kitāb al-#Uqūd was intended as an abridgment of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ so that
the term muhtas. ar should be regarded here as a genre label rather than
˘ treatise.4
the title of the
Manuscripts BL Or. E on the one hand and FEA I and
FEA I on the other hand represent two different copies of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd. Two more copies, both incomplete, have survived in the sec-
ond Firkovitch Collection and in the Cairo Genizah. The inventory of
currently identified copies is as follows.
Copy
The first copy of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is represented by BL Or. E, fol. –
.
2 This treatise was first discovered by M.N. Zislin (c:–, :); see also
Khan (b:); Khan et al. (:xxx).
3 The phrase II Firk. Evr.-Arab. will in the following be replaced by FEA.
4 On the genre of muhtasar see Arazi, Ben Shammai ().
.
˘
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
Copy
The second copy of Kitāb al-#Uqūd consists of FEA I ( folios), and
FEA I ( folios). The manuscripts join directly and FEA I
constitutes a part of the first quire of the copy.
Copy
The third copy of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is fragmentary and is represented by
the following five units: FEA I ( folios); FEA I ( folio); JTS
ENA . ( folio); T-S Ar. . ( folios in a bifolio); T-S NS .
( folio).
Copy
The fourth copy is fragmentarily preserved in T-S Ar. . (two folios
in a bifolio); T-S Ar. . (two folios in a bifolio); JTS ENA .–
(two folios).
The table below shows the reconstruction of Kitāb al-#Uqūd on the
basis of BL Or. E, FEA I and FEA I with parallel texts
in other copies given in brackets:
Title and beginning of the BL Or. E, fol. , (JTS
Introduction ENA .)
End of the Introduction and FEA I (T-S Ar. ., fol. )
Chapters One to the middle of
Chapter Three
Middle of Chapter Three to the end FEA I (FEA I ; FEA I
of the treatise ; BL Or. E, fol. ; T-S
Ar. ., fol. , T-S NS .;
T-S Ar. ., T-S Ar. ., JTS
ENA .–)
.. Author and Title of Kitāb al-#Uqūd
The text of the newly reconstructed Kitāb al-#Uqūd shows that important
information pertaining to the author and the title of the work can be
found in the body of the treatise. H. Hirschfeld believed that Kitāb al-
#Uqūd was composed by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.5 Following H. Hirschfeld’s
5 Hirschfeld (–:).
chapter two
opinion, Kitāb al-#Uqūd is generally included in the list of works written
by this Karaite master grammarian.6 Moreover, the first abridgment of
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ mentioned in the introduction to Kitāb al-#Uqūd also
appears on such lists under the title al-Muhtas. ar.7 However, Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn’s authorship of these books must ˘now be questioned. Indeed, it
was already shown that the treatise contained in FEA I cannot have
been written by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, for this grammarian is mentioned
in its text as a contemporary of the author:8
® ® ® ® ® ®
äñøç âøôìà ïá ïåøä âøôìà éáà êéùìà åäå àãä àððàîæ éô äãåâåî äáúë ïî øëã ã÷å
®®® äììà
Someone whose books are present in our time, namely the master Abū al-
Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj, may God protect him, mentioned …
[FEA I , fol. v]
Inasmuch as it has now been established that this treatise is a part of
Kitāb al-#Uqūd both al-Muhtas. ar and Kitāb al-#Uqūd must be considered
anonymous until further ˘evidence is discovered. It can, however, be
ascertained that the author of these books was a Karaite who worked in
the middle of the th century. Indeed, Kitāb al-#Uqūd must have been
composed after al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ and, as is demonstrated by the honorific
‘may God protect him’ in the quotation above, within the life time of
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. The earliest known manuscript of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄,
probably an autograph, was composed in 9 and it appears that Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn was still alive in .10 Thus, Kitāb al-#Uqūd can be dated
to the middle of the th century.11
The provenance of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is less certain. As is attested by the
colophon of FEA I , this copy of the book was prepared in Jerusalem:
®
®äìñ íìåò ãò äððëé íéäìà ùã÷ä øéò íìùåøé éô øöúëîìà êñð íú
The copy of the abridgment was completed in the holy city of Jerusalem,
may God preserve it forever! Selah. (Ps. :) [FEA I , fol. r]
On the basis of this evidence M.N. Zislin referred to the anonymous
author of the treatise as ‘the second grammarian from Jerusalem’ (the first
6 See, for example, Basal (:); Khan et al. (:xii).
7 This al-Muhtas. ar is to be distinguished from the text in FEA I .
8 ˘
Khan (b:); Khan et al. (:xxx); Zislin (c:, :).
9 Khan et al. (:xlix–l).
10 Gil (:–).
11 See also Zislin (:).
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
being Abū al-Faraj Hārūn).12 This supposition is plausible considering
that Jerusalem was the main centre of Karaite grammatical activity in the
th century.13
With a certain amount of certainty it is possible to say that the author
was of Babylonian descent, though probably not a first generation immi-
grant. Indeed, the vocalization of some Hebrew forms in the text of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd bears traces of Babylonian pronunciation clearly attributable to
the author.14 Yet when mentioning the Persians the author always used
the phrase wa-qad qı̄la inna al-#ajam … (‘it has been said that the Per-
sians …’)15 thus distancing himself from the Persians and transmitting
their opinions on the authority of others. Presumably, this would not have
been the case had the author spent a part of his life in Babylonia.
The meaning of the title Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya
should also be reconsidered. H. Hirschfeld translated the book’s title
as Pearl-Strings on the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language
deriving the plural form #uqūd from the singular #iqd (‘pearl-string’). He
concluded that the intention of the author in writing this book was to
compose ‘a vade mecum in which the bare grammatical facts were strung
together.’16 However, the Judaeo-Arabic ã÷ò must probably be read #aqd
(literally ‘knot’) and not #iqd and translated in the technical sense of ‘link,
connection, relation, rule.’ Indeed, the term #uqūd and its singular form
#aqd are frequently used in the newly identified sections of the book to
describe implicational rules concerning derivational relations between
different forms of a verb, referred to as #uqūd lā tanhall, . literally ‘knots
that cannot be untied’ (sg. #aqd lā yanhall),
.
17 e.g.:
® ® ®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ®
éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ
® ® ® ® ® ®
óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà àãä
® ®
øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà øéâ à ä
® ® ® ®
ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root heh
is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov. :)
12 See Zislin (c:–, :).
13 Khan (b:). On the Jerusalem academy see Mann (:–); Margoliouth
(:–, –).
14 See ...
15 ä÷éøèìà äã ® ® ®
ä øéâ åëìñ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å [FEA I , fol. v]; øéâ åìà÷ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å
®
êìã [FEA I , fol. v].
16 Hirschfeld (–:).
17 On rules of derivational relations see .
chapter two
and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions regarding
this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such imperatives
ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb
form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form derived from an
imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw. These are rules
without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
Similar implicational statements in Me"or #Ayin are referred to by the
Hebrew term qešer (literally, ‘knot’)18 confirming the reading #aqd for the
grapheme ã÷ò.
If this meaning of the term #uqūd is established, the title of our treatise
must be translated as Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections
of the Hebrew Language rather than Pearl-Strings on the Grammatical
Inflections of the Hebrew Language. It is, however, not impossible that the
title was intentionally ambiguous for rhetorical effect.
.. Contents of the Treatise
Kitāb al-#Uqūd is divided into thirty-nine chapters and sections19 dealing
with morphological and syntactical matters. The structure of the treatise
is as follows:
I. Introductory chapters
. [‘The purpose of the discipline of grammar’]20 (BL Or. E, fol. r–v;
FEA I , fol. r).21
The treatise begins by explaining that the need to study language is related
to ‘the duty of knowing the true meaning of the words of the Lawgiver
the Sublime’22 and expounding on the mistakes in the interpretation of the
Biblical text which a person ignorant of the rules of grammar is liable to
make.
. The chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other related matters’ (FEA I
, fol. r–v) deals with the structure of the Hebrew root. It incorporates
a section [‘On the origins of language’] (FEA I , fol. r–v) which
describes the stages of language creation based on the Aristotelian premises
that linguistic expression is arbitrary and a result of human agreement.23
18 See Zislin (:–).
19 The hierarchy of chapters and sections is not very strict in Kitāb al-#Uqūd so that
chapters sometimes include sections on deviant topics.
20 Titles of sections given in square brackets ([ ]) are mine, not the author’s.
21 The classmarks in brackets refer to the reconstruction of the text on the basis of
copies and .
22 éìòú òøùîìà úàøàáò ÷éà÷ç íìò áåâ®å [BL Or. E, fol. r].
23 On the Karaite ideas on the origins of language see Olszowy-Schlanger ().
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
. The chapter ‘On the categories of words used in natural speech’ (FEA I ,
fol. v–v; FEA I , fol. r–v) introduces the tripartite division of words
into nouns, verbs and particles.
. The chapter ‘On masculine and feminine letters’24 (FEA I , fol. v–
r) and the section [‘On four types of letters, namely root letters, auxiliary
letters, built-in letters and affixed letters’]25 (FEA I , fol. r–r) describes
two classifications of letters.
. The section [‘On words belonging to one or more parts of speech’] (FEA I
, fol. r–r) is on the classification of word forms based on the number
of parts of speech they can belong to.
. The chapter ‘On the conditions for forming morphological patterns’ (FEA I
, fol. r–v) formulates criteria for attributing word forms to morpho-
logical patterns. This chapter provides the theoretical background for the
ensuing discussion of verbal conjugations.
II. Verbal morphology
II.. Conjugation
The largest portion of the treatise (FEA I , fol. v–v) is devoted to Hebrew
verbal conjugations which are discussed following the method of symbols.26 The
idea of this method is to divide Hebrew verbs into groups such that all verbs in
a group have one particular vowel in the first syllable of their imperatives and
one particular vowel in the first syllable of their past forms, which is different
from that of the imperative. If the first vowels of the imperative and the past are
identical, vowels in the last syllables of these two forms are used instead. These
classes of verbs are then assigned mnemonic symbols, i.e. disyllabic Hebrew
words such that the first vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the vowel
common to all imperatives and the last vowel of the symbol word corresponds
to the vowel common to all past forms in the group. Thus, the symbol äTé!Ö
represents verbs in which the first vowel of the imperative is a hireq
. and the first
vowel of the past form is a qamas. , e.g. íé!×–í ×. The material on verbal conjugation
is divided into six chapters and sections.
. The section [‘On types of Hebrew imperatives’] (FEA I , fol. v–r)
divides verbs into four groups depending on the possibility of including
them into symbols as well as on the characteristic vowel of the imperative
and past form encoded in a symbol. The four chapters that follow describe
conjugational paradigms of various verb types in these groups.
. The chapter ‘On imperatives which differ in their first vowel from the past
verb forms derived from them and other related matters’ (FEA I ,
fol. r–r) describes symbols based on the initial vowel of the imperative
and the past.
24 On the concept of masculine and feminine letters see ...
25 On these concepts see ...
26 On this method see .
chapter two
. The chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in
their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other
related matters’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) describes symbols based on the
final vowel of the imperative and the past.
. The chapter ‘On imperatives which differ neither in their first vowel nor
in their last vowel from the past verb forms derived from them’ (FEA I
, fol. v–v) deals with verbs which cannot be included into a symbol
because their imperative and past forms have identical vowels both in the
initial and in the final syllable.
. The chapter ‘On imperatives which have no past form’ (FEA I , fol. v–
r) is devoted to verbs which cannot be included into a symbol because they
do not have past forms.27
. The chapter ‘On conjugational patterns belonging to mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä, or
ú î ä ä’28 (FEA I , fol. r–v) classifies imperatives beginning in a non-
root heh according to the prefixes of their past and active participle forms.
II.. Other matters related to verbal morphology
The ensuing chapters contain material on verbal morphology presented outside
of the reference frame of the system of symbols. These are:
. the chapter ‘On establishing the form of an imperative in difficult cases’
(FEA I , fol. v–v);
. the chapter ‘On types of active participles’ (FEA I , fol. r–v);
. the chapter ‘On passive participles which belong to a conjugational pattern’
(FEA I , fol. v–v);
. the chapter ‘On the infinitive’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) with its sections ‘On
the differences between verbal nouns and nouns called infinitives’ (FEA I
, fol. v–v) and [‘On true and pseudo-infinitives’] (FEA I ,
fol. v–r);
. the chapter ‘On stripping words of added letters in order for a word to return
to its basic form without additions’ (FEA I , fol. v–v);
. the chapter ‘On transitive and intransitive verbs’29 (FEA I , fol. v–r);
. the chapter ‘On the first and the second imperative’ (FEA I , fol. r–
v);
. the chapter ‘On infi#āl and ifti#āl’ (FEA I , fol. v–v);
. the chapter ‘On forms of active and passive verbs’ (FEA I , fol.
v).
27 See ...
28 On these mnemonics see ...
29 This chapter contains morphological as well as syntactic material.
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
III. Nouns
The chapter ‘On types of nouns’ (FEA I , fol. v–r) is devoted to the
classification of nouns and has a special section ‘On pronouns’ (FEA I ,
fol. r–r) expounding on independent and suffixed forms of subject and
object pronouns.
IV. Syntactic and semantic chapters
. The chapter ‘On conjoining’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) is devoted to the
genitive construction.
. The chapter ‘On the connective’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) describes various
uses of the conjunction we-.
. The chapter ‘On the attribute’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) deals with attribu-
tive constructions.
. The chapter ‘On the emphatic and the permutative elements’ (FEA I ,
fol. v–r) gives definitions of these notions.
. The chapter ‘On the initial item and the predicate’ (FEA I , fol. r–
r) describes the distribution of definiteness in nominal sentences and
links this to what is now known as the topic-comment dichotomy. It also
compares genitive constructions, attributive constructions and nominal
sentences from the point of view of definiteness of their constituents.
. The chapter ‘On true and pseudo-verbs’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) divides
verbs into those in which the person denoted by their active participle is
the agent of the action (‘true verbs,’ e.g. á Öé) and those in which the person
denoted by their active participle is not the agent of the action (‘pseudo-
verbs,’ e.g. ú î).30
. The section ‘On the attribute resembling the active participle’ (FEA I ,
fol. v–v) establishes differences and similarities between verbal ad-
jectives and active participles.
. The section [‘On the order of the verb, the agent and the patient’] (FEA I
, fol. v–r) deals with the question of the word order in Hebrew.
. The chapter ‘On legitimate combinations of the three parts of speech into
meaningful [utterances]’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) describes what se-
quences of nouns, verbs and particles make meaningful phrases.
. The chapter ‘On the division of objects’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) defines
five types of objects, namely, the absolute object, the direct object, the
circumstance, the reason object and the accompaniment object.
V. Miscellaneous
The last three chapters of Kitāb al-#Uqūd are of mixed character.
. The chapter ‘On some of the functions of masculine letters’ (FEA I ,
fol. v–r) enlists morphological and syntactic functions of the eleven
® ®®® ® ®® ®® ® ®
servile letters úùðî ìëé åä áà when these are used as affixes.
30 On this classification see Becker ().
chapter two
. The section [‘On the lexicon’] (FEA I , fol. r–r) deals with ()
contextual meaning; () contextual gender; () the division of one lexical
class into a number of conjugations.
. The chapter [‘On particles’] (FEA I , fol. r) enumerates Hebrew
particles and establishes criteria for distinguishing them from defective
nouns.
.. Nature of the Treatise
Kitāb al-#Uqūd is a pedagogical grammar intended primarily for begin-
ners who, having acquired knowledge of the text of the Bible, were
embarking on a systematic study of the Hebrew grammar striving to
achieve understanding and active mastery of Hebrew forms. Remarks
such as ‘this can often be obscure for beginners’31 or ‘I considered it nec-
essary to mention this because I noticed that beginners mix up one with
the other’32 seem to indicate that the author had first-hand knowledge
of problems encountered by beginners when learning Hebrew. With this
target audience in mind the author used an array of didactic technics in
the attempt to facilitate the acquisition of Hebrew forms. These include
mnemonics, rules of derivational relations, sample verbal paradigms
and examples in which whole passages of Biblical text are linguistically
analyzed.33
.. Sources of Kitāb al-#Uqūd
The obvious source of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ by Abū al-
Faraj Hārūn. According to the author’s own words, Kitāb al-#Uqūd was
intended as an especially concise abridgment of this work. However, a
comparison of the contents of Kitāb al-#Uqūd and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ shows
that the relation between these two books is more complicated. Indeed,
of the thirty-nine chapters and sections of Kitāb al-#Uqūd only twenty
closely follow and summarize the text in the respective chapters of al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. These are the following:
. the chapter ‘On the categories of words used in natural speech’;
. the section [‘On words belonging to one or more parts of speech’];
. the chapter ‘On the infinitive’;
31 ïééãúáîìà éìò êìã ® ®
ìëùé àî øéúëå [FEA I , fol. v].
32 õ® ® ® ® ®
òáá õòá íäéìò ñáúìé ïééãúáîìà úéàø àîì êìã øëã éìà úâúçàå [FEA I , fol. v].
33 See .
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
. the section ‘On the differences between verbal nouns and nouns called
infinitives’;
. the section [‘On true and pseudo-infinitives’];
. the chapter ‘On transitive and intransitive verbs’;
. the chapter ‘On the first and second imperative’;
. the chapter ‘On types of nouns’ apart from its sections ‘On pronouns’ and
[‘On suffixed object pronouns’];
. the chapter ‘On conjoining’;
. the chapter ‘On the connective’;
. the chapter ‘On the attribute’;
. the chapter ‘On the emphatic and the permutative elements’;
. the chapter ‘On the initial item and the predicate’;
. the chapter ‘On true and pseudo-verbs’;
. the section ‘On the attribute resembling the active participle’;
. the section [‘On the order of the verb, the agent and the patient’];
. the chapter ‘On legitimate combinations of the three parts of speech into
meaningful [utterances]’;
. the chapter ‘On the division of objects’;
. the chapter ‘On some of the functions of masculine letters’;
. the section [‘On the lexicon.’]
It can easily be seen that most chapters in this group are dedicated to
syntactical issues.
Another nine chapters and sections address topics discussed in al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ but deal with them in a different way.
. [‘The purpose of the discipline of grammar’] narrows down the range of
purposes of studying grammar.34
. The chapter ‘On masculine and feminine letters’ divides the letters of the
alphabet into root and functional letters and calls them ‘feminine’ and
‘masculine’ respectively, a terminology not found in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.
. The section [‘On four types of letters, namely root letters, auxiliary letters,
built-in letters and affixed letters’] introduces a new notion of auxiliary
letters.
. The chapter ‘On the conditions for forming morphological patterns’ shows
a significantly different arrangement of the material.
. The chapters () ‘On imperatives which differ in their first vowel from
the past verb forms derived from them and other related matters’; () ‘On
imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel
[from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’;
and () ‘On imperatives which have no past form’ not only decisively expand
the contents of a single chapter on verbal conjugations in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ but
also introduce the notion of #uqūd, i.e. implicational rules of derivational
relations between different forms of verbs.
34 See page .
chapter two
. The chapter ‘On types of active participles’ discusses the matter from a
different, morphological rather than comparative and semantic point of
view.
. The section ‘On pronouns’ suggests a different definition of the term ‘pro-
noun’ denoting only pronominal suffixes as pronouns (damā"ir)
. and calling
independent pronouns ‘nouns’ (asmā" z. āhira).
Contrary to the previous group, these chapters and sections are mainly
morphological.
Still another ten chapters and sections of Kitāb al-#Uqūd have no
parallels in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. These are:
. the chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other related matters’;
. the section [‘On the origins of language’];35
. the section [‘On types of Hebrew imperatives’];
. the chapter ‘On imperatives which differ neither in their first vowel nor in
their last vowel from the past verb forms derived from them’;
. the chapter ‘On conjugational patterns belonging to mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä, or
ú î ä ä’;
. the chapter ‘On establishing the form of an imperative in difficult cases’;
. the chapter ‘On passive participles which belong to a conjugational pattern’;
. the chapter ‘On stripping words of added letters in order for a word to return
to its basic form without additions’;
. the chapter ‘On infi#āl and ifti#āl’;
. the chapter ‘On forms of active and passive verbs.’
Again, the majority of chapters and sections in this group deal with
morphological matters and often aim to teach methods of morphological
analysis to beginners.
A pattern emerges from this breakdown of the contents of Kitāb al-
#Uqūd reflecting the nature of revisions undertaken by its author in the
attempt to make the material contained in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ more easily
accessible to learners of Biblical Hebrew. He summarized the chapters
on syntax, considerably expanded or modified chapters on verbal mor-
phology and added a number of new pedagogically orientated morpho-
logical chapters. By doing this he produced a treatise heavily relying upon
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ in its syntactical part but largely independent from it in
its account of the verbal morphology of Hebrew. Considering that the
35 This section exhibits some parallels with the chapter ‘On the definition and the true
meaning of speech’ in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil (FEA I , fol. r–v) and the beginning
of the chapter on the consonants in Hidāyat al-Qāri" (FEA I , fol. r–v; see Eldar
(:)) by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. Yet on the whole the section in Kitāb al-#Uqūd differs
significantly from the material in either work.
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
morphological chapters constitute the central part of the book (ca.
folios out of the total of ) it can be stated that even though Kitāb al-
#Uqūd is described by its author as an especially concise abridgment of
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ it must, in fact, be regarded as a treatise in its own right
closely related to rather than dependent upon the book of Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn.
The author’s focus on morphology clearly comes through in the way
he abridged the first chapter of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ ‘On the purpose of the
study of grammar and the ways of the Hebrew language.’36 In this chapter
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn points out three reasons to study grammar. Firstly,
grammatical knowledge helps to avoid errors in interpreting command-
ments by allowing one to correctly parse Biblical phrases. For example, a
person with a good knowledge of grammar would interpret úà h ç é!z"ì ë àå
®
éé éðé ò"a á èéi ä íÇi ä (Lev. :) as ‘I have eaten of the sin offering today
a quantity that is good’ instead of the incorrect ‘If I were to eat the sin
offering today would it be good?’ by virtue of knowing that é!z"ì ë àå with
non-final stress is a past verb and the heh followed by a dagesh in á èéi ä has
the meaning of ø Ö#à.37 Secondly, grammatical knowledge aids to interpret
correctly individual words and avoid mistakes such as translating é!úÇlb in
Josh. : as ‘I have uncovered,’ which corresponds to the Hebrew é!úé!lb,
instead of ‘I have rolled.’38 Thirdly, grammar is necessary to ensure cor-
rect reading. Indeed, a person untrained in grammar might make a mis-
take of stressing é!à&a in Çn!ò é!á"ë!Ö é!à&áe (Gen. :) on the ultima instead of
the penultima thus corrupting the meaning of the verse.39 Kitāb al-#Uqūd
gives up this tripartite division of the purposes of the discipline of gram-
mar. Instead it links the need of studying language to ‘the duty of knowing
the true meaning of the words of the Lawgiver the Sublime.’40 All exam-
ples of errors provided here involve mistakes in morphological analysis
and represent a subset of examples given in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ in the sec-
tion on the use of grammar for interpreting individual words. That none
of the examples of errors in syntactic analysis or reading cited in al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄ found their way into the abridgment indicates that these areas of
grammatical knowledge were of lesser importance for the author of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd.
36 See Khan et al. (:–, I..).
37 Khan et al. (:–, I...).
38 Khan et al. (:, I...).
39 Khan et al. (:, I...).
40 éìòú òøùîìà úàøàáò ÷éà÷ç íìò áåâ®å [BL Or. E, fol. r].
chapter two
Evidence suggests that apart from al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the author was
familiar with Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s treatise on pronunciation Hidāyat al-
Qāri".41 In one passage in Kitāb al-#Uqūd the author demonstrates his
acquaintance with the Hayyūjian
. theory that quiescent aleph, yod and
waw stand behind long Hebrew vowels:
úéèìà ãòá óìà éìò úðëñ ã÷ ø ä h!ä éô êðà
Indeed, in ø ä h!ä there is a quiescent aleph after the t. et.
[FEA I , fol. r]
Of all Karaite grammars predating Kitāb al-#Uqūd this theory is found
only in Hidāyat al-Qāri" 42 whence it must have made its way into our
treatise.
G. Khan observed that the text in FEA I , which has now been
identified as Kitāb al-#Uqūd, is ‘dependent on Abū al-Faraj Hārūn to
a large extent, though the author had access also to earlier Karaite
sources.’43 Earlier grammarians mentioned in the treatise are the Per-
sians,44 Ibn Nūh, 45 46
. and Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān. The Persians are referred to on two
occasions. Firstly, the author ascertains that these grammarians did not
pattern words with gutturals together with non-guttural words:
® ® ® ® ® ®
äé÷á ïî àäøéâá òçäà óåøç åðæé àì ïà åäå ä÷éøèìà äãä øéâ åëìñ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å
óåøçìà
It has been said that the Persians chose a different way in that they did not
® ® ® ®
pattern òçäà with the rest of the letters. [FEA I , fol. v]
Secondly, the author quotes the opinion of the Persians on the derivation
of bi-radical47 imperatives in hiph#il, such as ø ô ä, íL ä, òU ä and øé!ñ ä.48
He reports that according to them the vocalization of derivative forms
of such verbs differed from the vocalization of the relevant imperatives
only in the vowel of the prefix, whereas the vowel of the second syllable
remained unchanged, e.g. ø ô ä, ø ô ä, ø ô î, ø ôé and by analogy íL ä, íL ä,
íL î, íLé; øé!ñ ä, øé!ñ ä, øé!ñ î, øé!ñé and by analogy áé!Ö ä, áé!Ö ä, áé!Ö î, áé!Öé:
41 On this treatise see Eldar (, , ).
42 Eldar (:–).
43 Khan et al. (:xxx).
44 FEA I , fol. v, v–r.
45 FEA I , fol. r.
46 FEA I , fol. r.
47 On Karaite ideas regarding the structure of Hebrew verbal roots see ...
48 The irregular imperatives øé!ñ ä and íéX ä in Ezek. : must have been analyzed by
the Persians as one of the types of bi-radical hiph#il imperatives.
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
® ® ®
êàãå ®êìã øéâ åìà÷ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å áé!Ö ä á Ö ä øáò ïà åä ìåàãúîìà ïà íìòàå
® ®
ïéúè÷ð äøëàå äöî÷ øîàìà ìåà ®êúéøá ø ô ä êì å÷ë øîà ø ô ä ïà åìà÷ íäðà
® ® ®
øîàìà øëà àì óìúëé íìå øáòìà ìåàå øîàìà ìåà éô à á ä êåìî àâô ø ô ä øáòìàå
® ® ®
äúà óà ÷ë ø ô ú ìá÷úñîìàå íéãá úåúåà ø ô î ÷ë ø ô î ìòàôìàå ®øáòìà øëà àìå
® ® ® ®
øîà òV ä äìúîå ®êéøáã úà éé íLé ÷ë íLé íL î íL ä íL ä ø ô ä ìúîå ®äàøé ø ô ú
® ®
òV ä íàå å÷ë òV ú ìá÷úñîìàå òV î ìòàôìàå ®äîçìîá åòV äå ÷ë òV ä øáòìàå
® ® ® ®
àãäô äîçìîä éìë úà á ñ î éððä ÷ë ø ô î ìúî á ñ î ìòàôìàå á ñ ä á ñ ä äìúîå eòV ú
® ®
äîàìòìà ìâàì øáòìà ìåàå øîàìà ìåà éåñ äðî øééâú àî ãçàå óðö äìúàî àîå
® ®
ñðâ ®ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô éðàúìà óøçìà ïî ìæú íì ïéúè÷ðìàå
® ® ®
ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô äúáàú äçúàôá éðàúìà êìîìà ïåëé ïà åìà÷ ïàú
® ®
òU î ìòàôìàå ùã÷á áéåà òU ä ìë ÷ë òU ä øáòìàå øîà òU ä ÷ë ìá÷úñîìàå
® ® ® ®
åìà÷ úìàú ñðâ ºíëì òU à àìå ÷ë òU à ìá÷úñîìàå ïåà úôù ìò áéù÷î òU î ÷ë
® ® ®
íéX ä äìúîå øîà úôðöîä øé!ñ ä ìúî ìôñà ïî äè÷ð øîàìà éô éðàúìà êìîìà ïåëé
®
éìò àñàé÷ áé!Ö ä äìúîå ®øé!ñ à ìá÷úñîìàå øé!ñ î ìòàôìàå øé!ñ ä øáòìàå äøèòä
® ®
®êìã ìúàî àîå áé!Ö à ìá÷úñîìàå áé!Ö î ìòàôìàå áé!Ö ä øáòìàå øé!ñ ä
Take note that the prevailing opinion is that the past of á Ö ä is áé!Ö ä. But it
was said that the Persians maintained something different. Namely, they
said that ø ô ä is an imperative, as in ^"úéX"a ø ô ä _ ì (Chron. :), the
first vowel of the imperative is a qamas. and the last vowel is a s. ere. The
past form is ø ô ä. Thus, the vowels of à á ä49 occur in the beginning of the
imperative and in the beginning of the past form, whereas the last vowels
of the imperative and the past are identical. The active participle is ø ô î, as
in íé!c a úÇúÇà ø ô î (Isa. :), and the future is ø ô z, as in ä àYé ø ô z ä z à ó à
®
(Job :). Similar to ø ô ä is íL ä, íL ä, íL î, íLé, as in ^éW á"c ú à éé íLé (Jer.
:). Similarly, òV ä is an imperative, and the past form is òV ä, as in eòV äå
ä î ç"ì!n a (Sam. :). The active participle is òV î and the future is òV z,
as in eòV z òV ä í!àå (Sam. :). Similar to it is á ñ ä, á ñ ä with the active
participle á ñ î as ø ô î, as in ä î ç"ì!n ä é ì"k ú à á ñ î éðð!ä (Jer. :). These and
similar [verbs] belong to the first class in which only the beginnings of the
imperative and the past are distinct in accordance with the symbol and the
s. ere remains unchanged in the second syllable of the imperative, the past,
the active participle and the future.
They said that in the second class the second vowel is a patah. which is
stable in the imperative, the past, the active participle and the future.
For example, òU ä is an imperative and the past form is òU ä, as in ì k
ÖC&w a áéÇà òU ä (Ps. :), the active participle is òU î, as in áé!ÖO î òU î
ïå à ú ô"× ì ò (Prov. :), and the future is òU à, as in í ë ì òU à àÀå (Jer.
:).
They said that in the third type the second vowel of the imperative is a
hireq.
. For example, ú ôð"ö!n ä øé!ñ ä (Ezek. :) is an imperative and similar
to it is äT è#ò ä íéX ä (Ezek. :). The past verb form is øé!ñ ä, the active
49 à á ä is the first symbol in the system of symbols. It comprises verbs in which the first
vowel of the imperative is a qamas. and the first vowel of the past form is a s. ere.
chapter two
participle is øé!ñ î, and the future verb form is øé!ñ à. Similar to it is áé!Ö ä
formed by analogy with øé!ñ ä, with the past áé!Ö ä, the active participle áé!Ö î,
and the future áé!Ö à, and other such cases. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Like the Persians, Ibn Nūh. is mentioned in Kitāb al-#Uqūd with regard to
patterning gutturals:
® ® ®
ïà åäå ä÷éøè êìñ ã÷ íìòìà àãä êéàùî ïî àãä àððàîæ éô äàðãäàù ïî ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
äãä äììà äîçø çåð ïá áå÷òé åáà êéùìà àöéàå ä ù#òéå äð"áé ïéá ïæåìà éô ÷øôé àì
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
®òçäà ìâàì àãä ïî àøééâî àãä àâ àîðà ìå÷é úéçá äáúë éô äøåúàîìà äú÷éøè
Take note that one of the masters of this discipline whom I witnessed in our
times had pursued a course of making no distinction between the patterns
of äð"áé and ä ×#òé. This was also the way of the master Abū Ya#qūb ibn Nūh,
.
may God have mercy upon him, which is reflected in his books in that he
® ® ® ®
said that only on the account of òçäà one [word] was changed from the
other. [FEA I , fol. r]
Although this quotation could not be traced to any particular passage in
the published part of the Diqduq, it is clear that the described method of
patterning was, indeed, characteristic of Ibn Nūh. . Consider the following
examples: ‘note that the imperative of this is ä ×ð with the pattern of ä ×#ò’
(Ps. :), ‘its imperative is ä ôé with the pattern of äð"a, ä ×#ò’ (Ps. :),
‘from äð"a is derived äð"áé and from ä ×#ò is derived ä ×#òé which is similar to
it’ (Job :).50
Another earlier grammarian mentioned by the author is Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān, a
51
pupil of Ibn Nūh. . His name appears in Kitāb al-#Uqūd in the following
passage:
® ®
ïò éëç äðà øéâ øáòìà øëà éô äöîà÷á ò ÖÇð ò Öå!ä øáò ïà ìå÷ìà àãä ìéà÷ ãðòå
® ® ®
÷ë äçúôá òAÇð òAå!ä øáò ïà ìà÷ äðà ïàøéù ãéòñ äðò ìà÷é éãìà äðèàå ãéòñ éàø
® ®
íéäìà äãåäéá ò@åð ÷ë ò@Çð íñàìà ïàå äùò èôùî éé òAåð
The author of this statement asserts also that the past of ò Öe!ä is ò ÖÇð with a
qamas. at the end, even though he reports on the authority of the opinion
of Sa#ı̄d, and I think that he is the one called Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān, that the past of
®
òAe!ä is òAÇð with a patah,
. as in ä × ò è t"Ö!î éé òAÇð (Ps. :), whereas the noun
is ò@Çð, as in íé!äÀ$à ä@eäé!a ò@Çð (Ps. :). [FEA I , fol. r]
Clearly, the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd knew Sa#ı̄d’s grammatical teachings
not from the latter’s own books but from a secondary source. The most
probable source is the treatise on the Hebrew verbs composed by an
50 Khan (a:, , ).
51 On Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān see Poznanski (b:–).
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
anonymous author who presented himself as a commentator explaining
and elaborating upon grammatical opinions of somebody called Sa#ı̄d. In
the published text of this treatise past forms of first waw niph#al verbs are,
indeed, vocalized with a qamas. , ã ìÇð, ò ÖÇð, ò@Çð.52 Moreover, the following
statement is quoted in the name of Sa#ı̄d:
The statement of Sa#ı̄d: He has said that the five categories that apply
to [verbs derived from a base such as] ø î à ä,53 apply likewise to [verbs
derived from the base] ã ìe!ä. For, when you find a form such as ã ìÇð that
is conjoined in meaning, it is a noun referring to an entity, e.g. ä@eäé!a ò@Çð
®
(Ps. :). A case such as ä × ò è t"Ö!î éé òAÇð (Ps. :) is unequivocally a past
verbal form. If a form such as ò ÖÇð or ã ìÇð is disjoined in meaning, it may
be either a noun or a past verbal form. [Khan (b:)]
In all likelihood, this is exactly the statement alluded to in Kitāb al-
#Uqūd. Two conclusions can be drawn from this. Firstly, the treatise on the
Hebrew verbs must be regarded as one of the sources of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
As will be demonstrated later, it exerted particular influence upon the
way verbal paradigms were described in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.54 Secondly and
most importantly, this passage clearly corroborates G. Khan’s conjecture
that Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān is the grammarian referred to as Sa#ı̄d by the author of
the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.55
The author’s acquaintance with teachings of earlier grammarians is,
furthermore, reflected is his use of their grammatical terminology along-
side the terminology of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. One of the most conspic-
uous examples are the terms for transitive and intransitive verbs. Ibn
Nūh. used fi#l fı̄ al-ġayr and fi#l fı̄ al-nafs or fi#l fı̄ nafsih to refer to tran-
sitive and intransitive verbs respectively.56 The terms used by Abū al-
Faraj Hārūn are muta#addin for transitive and ġayr muta#addin or lāzim
for intransitive.57 In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the terminology is mixed. One finds
muta#addin for transitive verbs and ġayr muta#addin or fı̄ al-nafs for
intransitive verbs (at times a combined term fı̄ al-nafs ġayr muta#addin is
used). Ibn Nūh’s . term fi#l fı̄ al-ġayr and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s term lāzim
52 Khan (b:).
53 This refers to possible vocalizations of m.sg. past and m.sg. active participle forms
of niph#al verbs which can have a patah. or a qamas. in the final syllable depending on their
syntactic position (see Khan (b:–)).
54 See .
55 Khan (b:).
56 Khan (a:, a:).
57 Khan (a:); Khan et al. (:xliii).
chapter two
never occur.58 The terms for intransitive verbs are distributed in a manner
that fı̄ al-nafs and fı̄ al-nafs ġayr muta#addin appear more frequently in
the original chapters on verbal morphology whereas ġayr muta#addin
alone is found mainly in those chapters of Kitāb al-#Uqūd which closely
abridge al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.
In addition to the above-mentioned grammarians, reference is made
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd to anonymous sources. Apart from the vaguest ‘they
said’ and ‘it was said,’ one finds ‘one of the masters of this discipline whom
I witnessed in our times,’ ‘one grammarian,’ ‘scholars in this discipline’
and ‘linguists.’59
.. Reception
The text in FEA I , now identified as Kitāb al-#Uqūd, was recognized
by M.N. Zislin as one of the sources of Me"or #Ayin.60 M.N. Zislin drew
this conclusion by comparing the chapters on the Hebrew verbal conju-
gations in the two works and establishing their close resemblance. Now
that the complete text of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is available, it became possible
to determine the nature of Me"or #Ayin’s dependence on this grammar.
A comparison between the books reveals that the structure and contents
of Me"or #Ayin and Kitāb al-#Uqūd are very close but not identical. Some
chapters of Kitāb al-#Uqūd are not represented in Me"or #Ayin and, in turn,
some chapters of the latter are not based on the former. The books are
closest in the part on verbal paradigms where Me"or #Ayin follows and
condenses Kitāb al-#Uqūd. In those chapters which the grammars have
in common the material in Me"or #Ayin is, in general, not a direct transla-
tion from Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Although some passages are translated verba-
tim, the text is mainly paraphrased and adapted, at times shortened, and
at times expanded or supplied with personal comments. Yet Me"or #Ayin
never gets far enough from its source to be regarded as an independent
work.
58 Neither does fı̄ nafsih used by Ibn Nūh. as an alternative to fı̄ al-nafs.
59 ®
The respective Judaeo-Arabic expressions are åìà÷; ìé÷; ïî àãä àððàîæ éô äàðãäàù ïî
® ® ® ®
íìòìà àãä êéàùî [FEA I , fol. ]; ïé÷åã÷ãìà õòá [FEA I , fol. v] and àîìò õòá
r
®
÷åã÷ãìà [FEA I , fol. r]; íìòìà àãä ìäà [FEA I , fol. r]; ïééåâì [FEA I ,
fol. r].
60 Zislin (c:, :–).
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
Another previously identified source of Me"or #Ayin is the treatise on
the Hebrew nouns.61 This treatise constitutes an integral work with the
treatise on the Hebrew verbs62 and as such is one of the sources of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd. However, the author of Me"or #Ayin clearly accessed the text of
the treatise directly since the material he borrowed from it is not included
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.63
The sources of Me"or #Ayin exerted influence upon its terminology.
As has been pointed out in the literature, many grammatical terms
in Me"or #Ayin are translated from Arabic.64 Among them are Hebrew
cognates of terms characteristic for Kitāb al-#Uqūd which, to the best of
my knowledge, are not found in other grammars. Examples include:
Me"or #Ayin Kitāb al-#Uqūd Meaning of term
ot ne#ebad harf
. musta#mal auxiliary letter (in modern terms, the first
¯ radical of first nun, first yod and related
roots in pa#al)
qešer #aqd implicational rule describing derivational
relations between verb forms
has. -s. iwwuy lah al-amr lahā f.sg. imperative
he-#abar lah65 al-#abar lahā f.sg. and f.sg. past
¯ ¯
he-#abar lahem66 al-#abar lahum m.pl. past
¯ ¯
Some terminology of earlier grammarians not attested in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
appears in Me"or #Ayin. As discussed in the foregoing, early terms for
transitive and intransitive verbs were fi#l fı̄ al-ġayr and fi#l fı̄ al-nafs or fi#l fı̄
nafsih respectively. Kitāb al-#Uqūd uses fi#l fı̄ al-nafs but not fi#l fı̄ al-ġayr.
61 Khan (b:).
62 Khan (:).
63 See chapter ‘On morphological patterns of tri-consonant nouns’ (Zislin (:–
)).
64 See Khan (a:–); Maman (:); Zislin (:).
65 In two cases the surviving manuscript has äì øáòä instead of åì øáòä for m.sg.
past (see Zislin (:); compare Zislin (:, f.n. , )). This could potentially
be a mistake not for the Hebrew f.sg. lah but for the Arabic substrate lahu.
66 The last three examples deserve a comment. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the four terms al-amr
lahā, al-#abar lahā, al-amr lahum and al-#abar lahum are the standard terms for f.sg. and
¯
m.pl. imperatives ¯ forms. Al-#abar lahā is also used for f.sg.
and f.sg. and m.pl. past
past. In Me"or #Ayin the terms he-#abar lah and he-#abar lahem ¯ are common whereas has-
.
¯ (:, ))
s. iwwuy lah is used only twice (Zislin ¯ and has-siwwuy lahem does not
. .
occur. Instead, has. -s. iwwuy le-neqeba and has. -s. iwwuy le-zekarim are used.
¯ ¯
chapter two
On the contrary, in Me"or #Ayin one finds both ma#ase be-nep̄eš and
ma#ase be-zulat han-nep̄eš or ma#ase be-zulato. This data strengthens the
evidence of Me"or #Ayin’s independent access to early sources.
The provenance of Me"or #Ayin is not explicit in the book and has
to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence. M.N. Zislin
observed that whereas Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were mentioned in
the text, Arabic was not. He explained this situation by suggesting that
Me"or #Ayin was composed in a Christian land where bringing up Arabic
was dangerous.67 A. Maman pointed out that the reference to Greek
was certainly not incidental as a large Karaite community existed in
that period in Byzantium.68 However, it is possible to offer a different,
linguistic rather than political, explanation for the fact that the author
named Greek but omitted mentioning Arabic in his book. Indeed, the
reference to the various languages is made in the context of conditions
for forming morphological patterns where the author warned that only
words from the same language be patterned:
íéãùë ïåùìî úàæ äéäú íàå ®ùã÷ä úôùî úøçàä äéäú ïë ùã÷ä úôùî úàæ äéäú íàå
®íéðåé ïåùìî úøçàä äéäú íâ íéðåé ïåùìî úàæ äéäú íàå ®íéãùë ïåùìî úøçàä äéäú íâ
®øçà ïåùìì àåä àìå ïå÷ú ïåùì ìëì éë ïòîì åðåùì ìò àìà ïåùì ìë ìå÷ùú àìå
If one is a Hebrew [word], the other should also be Hebrew. If one is
an Aramaic [word], the other should also be Aramaic. If one is a Greek
[word], the other should also be Greek. Do not pattern [a word in] any
language with anything but [words] in the same language because each
language has rules which do not pertain to another language.
[Zislin (:)]
As a grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Me"or #Ayin is concerned primarily
with the linguistic reality of the Bible, not with any words in any language.
The Bible consists of books in Hebrew and Aramaic and, according to
medieval authors, uses some Greek vocabulary.69 On the other hand,
Arabic is not a Biblical language. It is not unlikely that when discussing
morphological patterning the author specifically mentioned languages
pertinent for the Hebrew Bible while omitting the irrelevant ones.
This is not to say, however, that Me"or #Ayin was not composed in
a Christian land. A. Maman analyzed the language of Me"or #Ayin and
concluded that it is consistent with writings emanating from the school of
67 Zislin (:).
68 Maman (:–).
69 See Derenbourg (:).
kitāb al-#uqūd fı̄ tas. ārı̄f al-luġa al-#ibrāniyya
Toviyyah
. ben Moshe in its morphological, syntactic and lexical features
as well as in its Arabicized style.70 Known texts composed in this type
of Hebrew were produced by Byzantine Karaites from the second half of
the th century on, either as translations of a single Arabic source or
alternatively as compilations produced originally in Hebrew but based
on a number of sources in Arabic and on private class-notes taken by
Byzantine students at the Jerusalem academy.71 A comparison of Me"or
#Ayin with grammatical works predating it proves that the book is a
compilation adapted from various sources.72 In all likelihood, it was
composed in Hebrew but could have originated in the author’s notebooks
compiled when studying Judaeo-Arabic sources which would account
for some untranslated Arabic terms, Arabicized spellings and verbatim
translated phrases in the text of the treatise.73
70 Maman (:–). On Karaite Hebrew see Maman () and the literature
cited there.
71 See Ankory (:–); Maman (:).
72 See also Zislin (:).
73 See Maman (:).
chapter three
THE METHOD OF SYMBOLS
.. The Concept of Symbols
The main focus of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is on the verbal morphology of Biblical
Hebrew. In particular, the purpose of the book was to bring together all
conjugational patterns of Biblical Hebrew ‘as a basis to which one could
refer and which could be studied in a short time.’1 This was achieved
following the so-called ‘method of symbols’ common in Karaite linguis-
tics before the th century, at which time it was replaced in Yehudah
Hadassi’s work Eškol hak-Kop̄er by the system of binyanim and gezarot
developed by Rabbanite grammarians.2 The idea of this method is to
divide Hebrew verbs into groups such that all verbs in a group have
one particular vowel in the first syllable of their imperatives and one
particular vowel in the first syllable of their past forms, which is differ-
ent from that of the imperative. If the first vowels of the imperative and
the past are identical, vowels in the last syllables of these two forms are
used instead. These classes of verbs are then assigned mnemonic symbols
(Arabic #alāma or ribāt. ; Hebrew siman). Symbols are disyllabic Hebrew
words such that the first vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the
vowel common to all imperatives and the last vowel of the symbol word
corresponds to the vowel common to all past forms in the group. For
example, the imperatives ä k ä and ø a c belong to a group designated with
the symbol word épb. The patah. in the first syllable of épb corresponds to
the patah. of the imperatives ä k ä and ø a c and the hireq
. in the second syl-
lable of épb corresponds to the hireq
. in the past forms ä k!ä and ø a!c. It is
clear that defined this way, symbols can comprise verbs of many different
types. For this reason, the symbols are further divided into conjugational
patterns (Arabic tas. rı̄f, Hebrew derek) in order to group together verbs
¯
1 ïàîæìà ïî øéñéìà éô áòåúñú àäéìà òâ®øé àìåöà ïåëú [BL Or. E, fol. r].
2 On this method see Basal (:–); Becker (:–); Maman
(a:–); Zislin (b, :–, ). Inasmuch as these reports were based on
incomplete textual evidence, it is here deemed necessary to take up the subject anew and
present a fuller description of the method.
chapter three
with a similar structure. For instance, imperatives ä k ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, and
ì k"ì k represent different conjugational patterns within the symbol épb.
.. Development of the Method
The system of symbols is currently known from four Karaite grammatical
works, namely al-Kitāb al-Muštamil,3 al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄,4 Kitāb al-#Uqūd5
and Me"or #Ayin6 as well as from a Karaite grammatical work partially
preserved in JTS ENA . and JTS ENA .–. A short fragment
identified by N. Basal as coming from al-Muhtas. ar, the first abridgment
˘
of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄, also contains a few lines from the end of the chapter
7
on the system of symbols. These texts represent different stages in the
development of the system.
According to Abū al-Faraj Hārūn the system of symbols was devised
by one of the earlier grammarians who created the symbols à á ä, épb, úT"t
and ì òeÖ. Later somebody created the symbol ïðÇk.8 These symbols are
based on the initial vowels of the imperative and the past. In al-Kitāb al-
Muštamil Abū al-Faraj Hārūn introduced two new symbols of the same
type, namely äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö and arrived at the following set of symbols
for imperatives and past forms differing in the initial vowel: à á ä, épb,
úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö. He remarked that if the imperative and
the past have identical vowels in the first syllable, a symbol cannot be
created.9 The same restriction is mentioned in JTS ENA .r. This
restriction is probably grounded in the fact that a symbol was intended
to grasp distinctive features of the imperative (#alāmat 10 al-amr) and the
past (#alāmat al-#abar) not found in the other form:11
¯
3FEA I , fol. v–v; FEA I , fol. r–r, r–r; II Firk. Arab.-Evr. .
4See Khan et al. (:–, I.).
5 FEA I , fol. r–r.
6 See Zislin (:–).
7 See Basal ().
8 FEA I , fol. v; Khan et al. (:, I..). The idea that a fixed relationship
holds between the vowel of the imperative and that of the past form (albeit not the symbol
words themselves) is registered in the Diqduq by Ibn Nūh. (Khan (a:–)) and
Kutub al-Luġa by Sa#adya Gaon (Dotan (:I, ); Goldenberg (:–, esp. )).
9 FEA I , fol. r.
10 The term #alāma is used in this sense only in the JTS ENA fragment and in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd. In Harunian grammars #alāma always refers to a symbol word as a whole.
11 The use of mnemonics (Hebrew simanim) to capture distinctions is known from
Masoretic literature. In the Masorah Magna mnemonic catchphrases are sometimes used
in order to pinpoint differences between parallel passages. Thus, to help remember the
the method of symbols
® ® ®
øîàìà ñàø éô ïåëé äîàìòìà ìåà éô éãìà êìîìà ïà åä úàîàìòìà äãäá õøâìà
® ®
øáòìì äîàìò øáòìà ñàø éô ïåëé äîàìòìà øëà éô éãìà êìîìàå øîàìì äîàìò
The purpose of these symbols is that the first vowel of the symbol occurs
in the beginning of the imperative as a sign of the imperative, and the last
vowel of the symbol occurs in the beginning of the past form as a sign of
the past. [FEA I , fol. r]
äîìëìà ìåàô ®®® àá ä äèàáøå ïéúè÷ðá äøáò õî÷á øîà ìë åä ìåàìà ìöàìàå
®
øáòìà äîàìò àäøëàå øîàìà äîàìò
The first principle is that each imperative in a qamas. has a past form in
s. ere. Its mnemonic is à á ä … The beginning of the word is the sign of the
imperative and its end is the sign of the past. [JTS ENA .r]
If the imperative and the past had the same vowel in the initial syllable,
this vowel could no longer be considered a distinctive feature of either
form and consequently could not be used as a basis for a symbol. Then a
different vowel had to be taken:
® ®
øàöô ®®® äìàçá à÷áé ìá øáòìà éô äôåøç ìåà êìî øéâúé àì àî åä çìà áøöìàå
®
äîìëìà øëà éô øáòìà äîàìò
The eighth type is when the vowel of the first consonant does not change
in the past but rather stays the same … Then the sign of the past is in the
end of the word. [JTS ENA .r–v]
The first grammar to include symbols based on the final vowel is al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄ where Abū al-Faraj Hārūn added three symbols á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò
for imperatives and past forms with identical first vowels but different
final vowels, while preserving the same set of symbols of the first type.
Some categories of verbs were deliberately excluded from the system of
symbols by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. These are ‘imperatives which have no
past forms’ (bi-consonant pa#al imperatives, e.g. á Ö, ò c),12 passive verbs,
exceptional forms (e.g. eèet"Öé in Ex. :) and rarely attested verbs with
many root letters (e.g. ä ìé!à"î"× àå in Gen. :).13
difference between the near-identical verses eàTJ àÀ ^"î!Ö"a ø Ö#à úÇç t"Ö!î ì òå (Jer. :)
and eàTJ àÀ ^"î!Ö"a ø Ö#à úÇë ì"î î ì òå (Ps. :) the Masorah Magna to Codex Leningradensis
comments: úÇë"ì"î î úÇç"t"Ö!î ì ë"ì àVS éðð!ä é!k ïåäðîéñå úÇë ì"î î ì òå íéìäú úÇç t"Ö!î ì òå äéîøé. The
verse úÇë"ì"î î úÇç"t"Ö!î ì ë"ì àVS éðð!ä é!k (Jer. :) is employed as a mnemonic for Jer. :
and Ps. : since it contains the distinguishing words úÇç"t"Ö!î and úÇë"ì"î î and the words
occur in the same order as in the Biblical text (i.e. úÇç"t"Ö!î before úÇë"ì"î î as Jer. before
Ps.). See Yeivin (:–).
12 On ‘imperatives which have no past forms’ see ...
13 For these restrictions in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil see FEA I , fol. r–v; FEA I
, fol. r–v, r. For al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ see Khan et al. (:–, I..–).
chapter three
A further development of the system can be seen in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
and Me"or #Ayin. In these books the inventory of conjugational patterns
in the existing symbols was enlarged, new symbols coined and the order
of some symbols and conjugational patterns rearranged. In both works
the same set of new symbols based on the initial vowels of the imper-
ative and the past appears, namely ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, and _U a. As to
the symbols based on the final vowels of these forms, Kitāb al-#Uqūd
mentions one new symbol òK a in the body of the text. Another sym-
bol éX t appears in the surviving manuscript in a marginal comment
written in the same hand as the rest of the text. The symbol is intro-
duced not in the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first
vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived
from them] and on other related matters’ but in the chapter ‘On í ä ä,
ïð"ä and ú î ä ä’ where conjugational patterns are classified on the basis
of the prefixes of their imperative, past and active participle forms.14
For this reason it is not included in the summarizing list of symbols
and conjugational patterns at the end of the former chapter.15 In Me"or
#Ayin both patterns form an integral part of the discussion of the sys-
tem of symbols. The author of Me"or #Ayin stated that the new sym-
bols ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a, òK a and éX t were his invention.16 More
probable is, however, that they were introduced by the author of a Vor-
lage of Me"or #Ayin, namely Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Apart from new symbols,
Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin present modified conditions for exclud-
ing verbs from the system. While still barring ‘imperatives which have
no past,’ they create conjugational patterns for certain types of passive
verbs as well as for rare forms.17 Moreover, Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or
#Ayin apply a new restriction that imperatives which differ from their
past neither in the initial nor in the final vowel cannot be classified in
the frame of the system of symbols. These are hitpa#el and niph#al imper-
atives inferred from imperfect forms with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g.
imperfect âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), imperative âp ò"ú!ä, past âp ò"ú!ä; imperfect ø á g!z
(Ezek. :), imperative ø á g!ä, past ø a"Öð. Me"or #Ayin explains that such
imperatives have to be excluded because ‘symbols can only be created in
14 On these mnemonics see .. and ...
15 FEA I , fol. r–v.
16 The employed expressions are ïîéñ éúúð for new symbols vs. ïîéñ åðúð for symbols
attested in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ (Zislin (:–)); see also Becker (:) and
Maman (:).
17 See ...
the method of symbols
the place of a change,’18 i.e. only based on that vowel of the past which
is different from the vowel of the imperative. This restriction is a logical
consequence of prohibiting symbols with two identical vowels.
It is interesting to note that the changes in the system introduced in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd are not found in al-Muhtas. ar, the first abridgment of al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ produced by the author.˘ Indeed, the few surviving lines
show that the last symbol in al-Muhtas. ar is éD ò as in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄
and not the new symbol òK a as in Kitāb ˘ al-#Uqūd.19 Furthermore, among
the anomalous verbs excluded from the system al-Muhtas. ar mentions
˘
ä ìé!à"î"× àå in Gen. :. This verb is excluded from the system in al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ as a form with many root letters. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd it is
accounted for in the conjugational pattern ì à"î"× ä in the symbol épb. This
demonstrates that Kitāb al-#Uqūd is a more innovative work compared
to al-Muhtas. ar, at least, as far as the system of symbols is concerned.
A somewhat˘ different tradition of the system of symbols seems to have
been preserved in the Cairo Genizah fragments JTS ENA . and
JTS ENA .–. These fragments belong to an otherwise unknown
Karaite grammatical work and deal with the system of symbols and the
division of consonants into root and non-root letters.20 Here the follow-
ing set of symbols is presented: à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, äTé!Ö and ïðÇk. As is
demonstrated by the use of the symbol äTé!Ö but not Çøé!Ö, the author
was familiar with Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s system but did not fully adopt it.
Instead of Çøé!Ö used in Harunian and related grammars to describe first
waw verbs in niph#al, the fragment introduces a monosyllabic(!) sym-
bol ïé!ä encompassing all niph#al verbs. This symbol word reflects the pre-
fixes of the imperative and the past of niph#al verbs as well as the joint
vowel of the first syllables of these forms. The author of the fragment sin-
gled out verbs in the symbol ïé!ä by saying that in ïé!ä the forms of the
imperative and the past are distinguished by their first consonants, i.e.
the heh vs. the nun, while the first vowels are the same whereas in the rest
of the symbols the difference is in the first vowels and the first conso-
nants are the same. Regarding verbs in which neither the first consonant
18 óåìç íå÷îá àìà ïúåé àì ïîéñä éë ïòîì [Zislin (:)].
19 See Basal (:).
20 A. Maman (:–, ) conjectured that JTS ENA . and JTS ENA
.– might belong to al-Kitāb al-Muštamil. This is unlikely as the fragments contain
a different set of symbols, use different terminology, posit passive imperatives which were
dismissed as logically impossible by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn (Khan et al. (:, I..)),
and classify shin as a root letter, an opinion discussed and refuted in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil
(FEA I , fol. v–r) and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ (Khan et al. (:, I..)).
chapter three
nor the first vowel can mark the difference, the author states that the
‘sign of the past’ (#alāmat al-#abar) is to be found in the end of a verb.
Among verbs belonging to this ¯ group he lists po#el, hoph#al and pu#al
verbs, and, as a different category, hitpa#el verbs and hitpa#el verbs with
assimilation of the prefix taw into the first letter of the root. The following
table summarizes the development of the system of symbols:
Term Symbols based on the Symbols based on the
Grammatical used for initial vowels of the final vowels of the
work symbols imperative and the past imperative and the past
pre-Abū al-Faraj ? à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ; later none
Hārūn ïðÇk
al-Kitāb #alāma à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, none
al-Muštamil äTé!Ö, Çøé!Ö
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ #alāma à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò
äTé!Ö, Çøé!Ö
Kitāb al-#Uqūd #alāma, à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a,
ribāt. äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î, (éX t)
ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a
Me"or #Ayin siman à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a, éX t
äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î,
ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a
JTS ENA . ribāt. à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, none
and .– äTé!Ö, ïðÇk; ïé!ä
.. Division of Symbols into Conjugational Patterns
By definition symbols can be heterogenous and subsume verbs of any
type as long as their imperative/past vowel combination fits the mnemon-
ic. For purposes of morphological description, symbols had to be divided
into homogeneous conjugational patterns. Such division is a feature
of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s and related grammars and does not seem to
have existed in earlier works. Below I present a synoptical inventory of
conjugational patterns in the four known grammars dividing symbols
into conjugational patterns.21
21 M.N. Zislin (:) presented an incomplete summary table on the four works
giving the symbols and the number of patterns in each symbol, though not the patterns
themselves. D. Becker (:–) compiled an equally incomplete list of symbols
and conjugational patterns in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ and Me"or #Ayin but presented them
the method of symbols
... Symbols Based on the
Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
Symbol à á ä
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil ()22 á Ö ä, äVæ, á Ö ä, _V a
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () á Ö ä, äVæ, á Ö ä, _V a
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () áé Ö ä, ø ô ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ, _V a
Me"or #Ayin ()23 áé Ö ä, á Ö ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ, _V a
Symbol épb
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () ä k ä, ì v ä, äe ö, ä àY ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, ì k"ì k
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () ä k ä, ì v ä, äe ö, ä àY ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, ì k"ì k
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ä k ä, ìé v ä, ì v ä, Öb ä, çép ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a,
ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a,
ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, ò z"ò z, ì à"î"× ä
Me"or #Ayin () ä k ä, ìé v ä, ì v ä, Öb ä, conjugational patterns –
are lost, ç aæ, í çð, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä,
ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, çð"ò t, ì à"î"× ä
Symbol úT"t
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () ä ×#ò, ø&î"Ö, ç ì"Ö
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () ä ×#ò, ø&î"Ö, ç ì"Ö
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, àTO
Me"or #Ayin () äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, àTO
combined rather then comparatively as if the inventory of symbols and conjugational
patterns in these works were the same. Such mode of presentation clearly masks the
differences between the two grammars.
22 The material on al-Kitāb al-Muštamil is taken from FEA I , fol. v–v. In
FEA I , fol. r–r, r–r different sample verbs are used in some conjugational
patterns. Some vocalizations in FEA I are lacking or seem to be corrupt. In such
cases, inasmuch as sample verbs in FEA I are unvocalized, sample imperatives in
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil are vocalized here according to al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.
23 In the surviving manuscript of Me"or #Ayin some vocalizations seem to be corrupt
(see Zislin (:)). In such cases sample imperatives in Me"or #Ayin are vocalized here
according to Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
chapter three
Symbol ì òeÖ
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () áeÖ
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () áeÖ
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () áeÖ, òeð
Me"or #Ayin () áeÖ, òeð
Symbol ïðÇk
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () á&ñ
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () á&ñ
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () á&ñ, òð
Me"or #Ayin () á&ñ, òð
Symbol äTé!Ö
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ïÇk!ä, _ea!ä
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ïÇk!ä, _ea!ä
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä
Me"or #Ayin () íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä
Symbol ä ì Ö
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ÖÇá ä, òÇø ä
Me"or #Ayin () ÖÇá ä, òÇø ä
Symbol Çøé!ù
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil () òAe!ä
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () òAe!ä
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ÖLe!ä, õ òe!ä, òBe!ä
Me"or #Ayin () ÖLe!ä, òAe!ä, ò Öe!ä
the method of symbols
Symbol ä k î
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä, ì àâ à
Me"or #Ayin () ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä, ì àâ à
Symbol ä á à
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ã î ç ä, Öð à ä, ó ñ à ä
Me"or #Ayin () ã î ç ä, Öð à ä, ó ñ à ä
Symbol é!ì ò
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () íAT ä, à ôT ä, ä àT ä
Me"or #Ayin () ä àT ä, íAT ä, à ôT ä
Symbol _U a
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ä × ò ä
Me"or #Ayin () ä ì ò ä
chapter three
... Symbols Based on the
Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
Symbol á ñ î
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () è ì n!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, _V a"ú!ä, ø ä h!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ïðÇk!ä,
ø òY ò"ú!ä, ïðÇk
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, ã äé"ú!ä,
_ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV z"×!ä,
Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
Me"or #Ayin () è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×,
_ l ä"ú!ä, ã äé"ú!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, øV z"×!ä,
òV z"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä,
d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
Symbol ä@ ò
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () äð a!ä, äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä, äð a!ä, ä kf!ä, äð"ô ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ, ä l k,
ä ë"Ö î, äV(à z, ä èeô"Ö
Me"or #Ayin (?) äp ò"ú!ä, conjugational patterns – are lost
Symbol éD ò
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ () ì ìé ä, ãVÇä
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () áé èé ä, á ÖÇä, òBÇä
Me"or #Ayin (?) all conjugational patterns are lost
Symbol òK a
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ø î g!ä
Me"or #Ayin (?) all conjugational patterns are lost
the method of symbols
Symbol éX t
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil –
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ –
Kitāb al-#Uqūd () ãWÇä
Me"or #Ayin (?) all conjugational patterns are lost
... Arrangement of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns
The table shows that newer symbols are generally placed after the sym-
bols registered in earlier works. An exception is ä ì Ö which is inserted
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin between äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö. Conjugational
patterns within a symbol are arranged by increasing number of root let-
ters. For each number of radicals the general order of patterns is: () pat-
terns without the formative heh; () patterns with initial heh; () patterns
with final heh; () patterns with initial and final heh. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd
for each number of root letters and position of the heh non-guttural
imperatives are given first followed where relevant by imperatives with
gutturals and later by imperatives with metathesis of taw due to sibi-
lants. In Me"or #Ayin imperatives with metathesis precede those with gut-
turals. Another criterion of pattern arrangement is the morphological
affinity of sample imperatives. This is particularly obvious in the sym-
bol á ñ î. In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the order of patterns in this symbol is: ()
è ì n!ä (infi#āl); () _ l ä"ú!ä, _V a"ú!ä, ø ä h!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä (ifti#āl);
() ïðÇk.24 The patterns ø ä h!ä and ïðÇk!ä are understood by Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn as related to ifti#āl and grouped together with other hitpa#el con-
jugations. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd these and similar verbs were construed as
infi#āl25 and consequently grouped with other niph#al verbs so that the
reorganized symbol displays the following order of patterns: () è ì n!ä,
òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä (infi#āl); () ïðÇk, ç çÇ×; () ã äé"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä,
ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV ú"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
(ifti#āl).
24 The separation of patterns into groups is mine.
25 See ...
chapter three
.. The Extension of the System
of Symbols in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin
It is obvious that the works fall into two groups with regard to the sets of
included symbols and conjugational patterns: () al-Kitāb al-Muštamil
and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄; and () Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin. In the
first group works contain identical sets of symbols based on the first
vowel of the imperative and the past and the inventory of conjugational
patterns in these symbols is the same (as was mentioned above al-Kitāb
al-Muštamil does not have symbols based on the final vowels of the
imperative and the past). In the second group the sets of symbols and
conjugational patterns are nearly identical in both chapters the only
difference being that Me"or #Ayin announces twelve instead of eleven
conjugational patterns in the symbol ä@ ò (all but one of them are lost
in the surviving manuscript).26
Importantly, the inventory of symbols and conjugational patterns in
the second group is much larger than in the first group. To explain the
extension of the system in works of the second group it will suffice to
compare the inventory of conjugations in Kitāb al-#Uqūd with that in al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄, due to the identity of works in each group as regards the
set of included patterns.
Kitāb al-#Uqūd presents twelve symbols comprising fifty-eight conju-
gational patterns built on the basis of the first vowels of the imperative
and the past as opposed to seven symbols and twenty-one conjugations
found in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. It also mentions five symbols with thirty-five
conjugational patterns built on the basis of the last vowels of the imper-
ative and the past as opposed to three symbols with fifteen conjugations
found in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. An analysis of paradigms presented in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd reveals that new conjugational patterns were introduced due
to: () widening of the range of forms accounted for within the system;
() modification of the approach to verbal derivation; () modification
of the principle of grouping.27
26 In a number of cases sample verbs in Me"or #Ayin differ from those in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
which is hardly significant as sample verbs are sometimes changed within Kitāb al-#Uqūd
itself.
27 On the pedagogical rationale behind this extension of the system of symbols see .,
..
the method of symbols
... Widening of the Range
of Forms Accounted for within the System
Some of the newly introduced conjugational patterns and symbols ac-
count for the widening of the range of forms for which symbols can be
created. As was mentioned above, Abū al-Faraj Hārūn excluded from the
system of symbols ‘imperatives which have no past forms,’ passive verbs,
exceptional forms and rarely attested verbs with many root letters.28 In
Kitāb al-#Uqūd only the first of these restrictions was maintained and
symbols were not created for ‘imperatives which have no past.’ Verbs of
other types were included in the system and conjugations were created
for forms with many root letters (e.g. ì à"î"× ä in the symbol épb for ä ìé!à"î"× àå
in Gen. :), exceptional forms (e.g. ä èeô"Ö for eèet"Öé in Ex. :, ä ë"Ö î
for ä úÇà eë"Ö î in Ezek. :, both in the symbol ä@ ò) and some passive
verbs (e.g. äð"ô ä in the symbol ä@ ò for eð"ô ä in Jer. :).
... Modification of the Approach to Verbal Derivation
A number of conjugational patterns newly introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
reflect a difference in the approach to verbal derivation. Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn proposed imperative bases of a regular pattern and explained
irregularities in derivative forms by phonetic processes operating be-
tween imperatives and their derivatives. On the contrary, the author of
Kitāb al-#Uqūd accepted the view of earlier grammarians that an imper-
ative base must be maximally close to occurring forms and retain key
features of their structure even at the cost of being hypothetical and
anomalous.29 A number of such hypothetical imperatives, some inher-
ited from the early tradition, others newly proposed, were integrated
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd into the system of symbols. Among the hypothetical
conjugational patterns are ä ÖO a (symbol épb) created for pi#el forms lack-
ing dagesh in a non-guttural; ø î g!ä (symbol òK a) for niph#al imperfect
forms with retraction of the stress, and such pairs as _é ì"Ö ä with yod vs.
_ ì"Ö ä without yod (symbol épb) introduced to explain structural differ-
ences between indicative and jussive imperfect forms in hiph#il. Such pat-
terns are not found in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ where a lesser degree of structural
equivalence was required eliminating the need for hypothetical impera-
tives.
28 Khan et al. (:–, I..–).
29 On the principles of verbal derivation in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ see ..
chapter three
... Principles of Classification
In all works the grouping of attested verbs into conjugational patterns
is based on the notion of the morphological pattern (wazn).30 In al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the following conditions are formulated for two verbs to
belong to one morphological pattern: () the verbs must have the same
morphological form (s. ı̄ġa), i.e. produce the same impression on the sense
of hearing. Examples of verbs with identical morphological form are ä × ò
and ä ì ò, ä ×#òé and ä ì#òé, ø î Ö and ø ëæ, ø&î"Öé and ø&kæé. () Both words must
be verbs; () the verbs have to be in the same tense and mood; () the
verbs must have the same number of root letters;31 () a letter liable to
elision must be either elided or retained in both verbs; () if the verbs
have an elided letter, it must be in the same position; () the paradigms
of both words must be the same to their full extent.32
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the conditions are similar: () the verbs must have
the same number of root letters; () the root letters have to be in the
same position within the verbs; () the verbs must have the same number
of vowels and these vowels need to be identical; () gutturals may not
be patterned with non-gutturals in order not to violate the principle of
identity of morphological form in a pattern; () the paradigms of both
verbs must be the same to their full extent; () the verbs must be in the
same tense and mood; () if a letter was elided from one of the forms, the
second form must also have a letter elided from it.33
It is the general principle of the system of symbols that verbs with
congruent morphological patterns are attributed to one conjugational
pattern. It should be noted that equivalence of morphological pattern
does not presuppose equivalent root structure in the modern under-
standing of the concept so that many conjugational patterns include verbs
which for us belong to different gezarot and/or binyanim. In al-Kitāb al-
Kāfı̄ the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the symbol à á ä includes a mid-
dle weak imperative á Ö ä from dT"ò z ì à á Ö ä (Ezek. :) and gemi-
nated imperatives ø ô ä34 and òU ä. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the conjugational
30 This principle of presentation in Me"or #Ayin was pointed out by M.N. Zislin
(:). A. Maman’s (a:) disputation of M.N. Zislin’s views relays on the assump-
tion that M.N. Zislin construed symbols rather than conjugational patterns as based on
morphological patterns of included verbs.
31 On the Karaite concept of the root see ...
32 Khan et al. (: –, I..–).
33 FEA I , fol. r–v.
34 On the Babylonian type vocalization of geminated verbs in hiph#il with a patah
.
instead of a s. ere in the final syllable see ...
the method of symbols
pattern çép ä in the symbol épb has a sample verb which is a middle
weak third guttural verb with aramaising gemination of the first radical
and includes first nun third guttural verbs, e.g. eòébé (Ps. :) alongside
first yod second s. ade third guttural verbs, e.g. òé!vé (Isa. :).
Across the grammars, a different degree of structural affinity is re-
quired between verbs in a pattern. Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s strategy was to
attribute verbs which have morphological patterns connected through
a regular phonetic process, such as the influence of gutturals, to one
conjugational pattern. He then relied on the readers’ ability to modify
sample verb forms in accordance with phonetic rules of Biblical Hebrew.
This is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the sample verb of the
fourth conjugational pattern in the symbol épb in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ is ä àY ä
which does not fit the definition of the symbol, the first vowel of its m.sg.
past being a segol instead of a hireq. 35 This sample verb is considered
.
admissible by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn inasmuch as the vowel change is
regular.36 Similarly, in the chapter on the vowel of the future prefix in al-
Kitāb al-Muštamil, first strong ïÇké and first aleph øÇàé are attributed to the
same conjugational pattern.37 A new conjugational pattern is created only
when the difference in form cannot be explained by a phonetic process,
as is the case with conjugational patterns _ea!ä with a shuruq for forms
such as é!úÇðeáð (Isa. :) or íé!ëeáð (Ex. :) and ïÇk!ä with a holam.
for ïÇáð (Gen. :) and similar forms.38 Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s principle
of establishing conjugational patterns is reminiscent of the notion of
‘imperative in its primary form’ (amr bi-ra"sih) used by Ibn Nūh. and
other early grammarians to refer to ‘a form of imperative base that is not
derivative from another by a phonetic process.’39 Using this terminology
one could say that Abū al-Faraj Hārūn posited conjugational patterns
only for ‘imperatives in their primary form.’
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the classification is much stricter and the emphasis
is put on the morphological form of verbs in a conjugational pattern.
A rigid one-to-one correspondence between the morphological form
35 See Khan et al. (:, I. .).
36 See also Becker (:).
37 FEA I , fol. r. A similar principle of classification served the author of the
treatise on the Hebrew verbs (Khan (b:)) and the author of JTS ENA . and
JTS ENA .–. In the latter it is evident from the fact that the imperatives ø î g!ä and
ä àT ä are both attributed to the symbol ïé!ä where the hireq
. represents the joint vowel of
the imperative and the past (JTS ENA .r).
38 See Khan et al. (:, I.., ).
39 Khan (a:, b:).
chapter three
and the conjugational pattern of a verb is required so that verbs of
non-identical morphological forms are invariably attributed to different
conjugational patterns. This principle is explicitly mentioned with regard
to the introduction of the conjugational pattern ø ä h!ä as opposed to ø t k!ä:
® ®
äôìàëî äâéöìà ïàì äì ìé÷ ®ïéôéøöú ø ô ë!äå ø ä è!ä úìòâ íì ìà÷ ïàô
If one says: ‘Why did you attribute ø ä h!ä and ø t k!ä to two [different] con-
jugational patterns?’ it should be said to him: ‘Because the morphological
form is not the same’. [FEA I , fol. r]
Importantly, identity of morphological form can sometimes be more sig-
nificant for establishing conjugational patterns than the identity of mor-
phological pattern so that verbs are grouped together which belong to
different morphological patterns. This happens when guttural and non-
guttural imperatives have the same morphological form. According to
the definition of morphological pattern given in Kitāb al-#Uqūd, guttural
verbs cannot be patterned with non-guttural ones. On the other hand, the
morphological form of a verb is not necessarily influenced by the pres-
ence of gutturals. Thus, in the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the symbol
à á ä the author conjugated two sample verbs, a non-guttural verb á Ö ä and
a final guttural òU ä. These verbs have the same morphological form (the
prefix heh followed by two radicals with the vocalic pattern qamas.–patah) .
but cannot be attributed to one morphological pattern because òU ä is a
guttural verb and á Ö ä is not. Similarly, in the conjugational pattern äVæ in
the same symbol the second sample imperative is a non-guttural ä á ä.40 In
both cases the sample verbs are said to belong to the same conjugational
but to a different morphological pattern.41
Only the morphological form of m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past
is taken into account when grouping verbs into conjugational patterns
whereas differences in morphological form apparent in derivative forms
but hidden in m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past are disregarded.
This is shown among other things by the classification of first guttural
verbs in pa#al. In this binyan the difference between strong and first gut-
tural verbs is evident in the forms of the future but not in the imperative
and the past.42 This difference was acknowledged by the author:
40 This imperative is hypothetical.
41 äðæå éô àì äôéøöú éô [FEA I , fol. v, r].
42 In the imperative the difference between äð"a and ä ×#ò
is purely notational because
in the Tiberian reading tradition the vocalic shewa was pronounced as a short /a/, same
as the hataph
. patah. (Khan (:); Morag (:–)).
the method of symbols
®
àãçàå àãøåî òîñìà äñàç éìò àîäãøåî ñéì ãà äãçàå äâéöá ñéì äð"áéå ä ×#òé
ä ×#òé
and äð"áé do not have the same form because the impression they
produce on the sense of hearing is not the same. [FEA I , fol. r]
Yet among the structurally identical imperatives in the conjugational
pattern äð"a in the symbol úT"t one finds the first guttural imperative
ä ì"à.43
Another prominent manifestation of this principle is the classification
of geminated verbs. On the one hand, conjugational patterns with gemi-
nate sample verbs include imperatives inferred from attested forms with-
out dagesh in which strong geminated verbs normally would have one.
Thus, the list of structurally identical imperatives in the conjugational
pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk includes imperatives Ö&a, ø&à and ø&ò inferred
from the middle weak f.sg. imperatives é!ÖÇa (Isa. :) and éXÇà (Isa. :)
and the aramaizing f.pl. imperative form äT&òå (Isa. :) of the gem-
inated root #.r.r. which does not have the dagesh on the account of the
resh.44 Likewise, a number of imperatives on the list of structurally identi-
cal verbs in the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö are inferred
from forms which clearly lack the dagesh in the final radical before a suf-
fix. These are Öb!ä from eÖb!z (Ezek. :), ì v!ä from äð"ì v!z (Jer. :) and
ò z!ä from eò zð (Job :). In the conjugational patterns ø ô ä and á Ö ä in the
symbol à á ä middle weak and geminated verbs are also grouped together
despite the dagesh in some of the attested forms of geminated verbs.
On the other hand, imperatives inferred from geminated verb forms are
attributed to middle weak conjugations. For example, imperatives ìÇb!ä
from elâðå (Isa. :) and ìÇf!ä from elÇæð (Isa. :, :) are listed among
the imperatives structurally identical with ïÇk!ä. One can conclude that
elements of morphological form of derivative verb forms not reflected in
their m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past were, indeed, seen as non-core
structural elements and disregarded for the purposes of classification.
To satisfy the principle of attributing verbs with non-identical mor-
phological forms of m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past to different con-
jugational patterns, the author introduced separate paradigms for verbs
with gutturals or resh as one of their radicals and hitpa#el verbs with
metathesis of taw before a sibilant.
43 On the use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph vowel see ....
.
44 Gesenius (§i).
chapter three
.... Guttural Verbs
Separate conjugational patterns were established for verbs with gutturals
only under the condition that the guttural influences the vocalism of
m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past. Wherever this is not the case, gut-
tural and non-guttural verbs were deemed to have the same morpholog-
ical form and were patterned together.
. First Guttural Verbs
Separate conjugational patterns were introduced for first guttural verbs
in hiph#il (e.g. ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä) and first guttural and first resh verbs
in niph#al (e.g. òÇø ä, ã î ç ä, ä × ò ä, à ôT ä). Inasmuch as the gutturals here
affect the first vowel of the imperative and/or the past, new symbols had
to be coined to reflect them. These are ä k î for hiph#il verbs and ä ì Ö, ä á à,
é!ì ò and _U a for niph#al’s.
. Second Guttural Verbs
Separate conjugational patterns were proposed for second guttural pi#el
and hitpa#el forms with virtual gemination (e.g. í çU in the symbol épb,
ã äé"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î). In such conjugations the vowel sign in the
first syllable is the same as in middle strong verbs but the vowel itself is
lengthened (in medieval terms, the verb contains a quiescent aleph):
®
®êìãë ñéì ø ñe!äå ø ô k!äå úéèìà ãòá óìà éìò úðëñ ã÷ ø ä h!ä éô êðà
Indeed, in ø ä h!ä there is a quiescent aleph after the t. et and in ø t k!ä and
ø qe!ä this is not the case. [FEA I , fol. r]
Conjugational patterns for second guttural pi#el and hitpa#el forms with
compensatory lengthening (e.g. _V a in the symbol à á ä vs. ø a c in épb,
_V a"ú!ä vs. _ l ä"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î) are also registered but these were
included already by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.45 Considering that this gram-
marian established separate conjugational patterns only for ‘imperatives
in their primary form’ their presence in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ clearly indicates
that Abū al-Faraj Hārūn was not familiar with the concept of compen-
satory lengthening.46
. Third Guttural Verbs
Third guttural conjugations constitute the largest subset of patterns newly
introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd. In the derivational theory of the author,
45 See Khan et al. (:, , , I.., , , ).
46 See also Becker (:).
the method of symbols
third guttural imperatives can be vocalized with either s. ere and furtive
patah. or with a patah. in the final syllable depending on the vocalic pat-
tern of their attested derivative forms.47 In symbols based on the ini-
tial vowel of the imperative and the past, third guttural conjugational
patterns of both types were proposed, e.g. ç aæ in the symbol épb, çéð ä in
the symbol à á ä, òBe!ä in the symbol Çøé!Ö vs. ò l a and ø ö"ô ä in the sym-
bol épb. In symbols based on the final vowel of the imperative and the
past conjugational patterns were added only for imperatives ending in
s. ere and furtive patah,. e.g. ç t z"ñ!ä, òð k!ä in the symbol á ñ î, òBÇä in the
symbol éD ò.48 Indeed, related third guttural imperatives in a patah. are
identical with their past forms in both the initial and the final vowel
and as such cannot be classified in the frame of the system of sym-
bols.
It must be noted that sample verbs with gutturals are found in al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ as well as in Kitāb al-#Uqūd, e.g. ä àY ä in the symbol épb and
ø ä h!ä in the symbol á ñ î. However, as these are never contrasted with
non-guttural imperatives (apart from second guttural verbs with com-
pensatory lengthening), guttural sample verbs in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ have
to be understood as representing the conjugation of all verbs of the rel-
evant type. The only case where a guttural vs. non-guttural contraposi-
tion could be suspected are the conjugational patterns ø&î"Ö and ç ì"Ö in
the symbol úT"t. Yet ç ì"Ö is probably best interpreted here as exemplify-
ing forms of all pa#al verbs with a patah. in the imperfect rather than of
guttural verbs alone.
.... Hitpa#el Verbs with Metathesis of Taw
A number of hitpa#el conjugations with metathesis of the prefix taw were
created in Kitāb al-#Uqūd for first sibilant verbs, all in the symbol á ñ î,
e.g. ì a z"ñ!ä as opposed to _ l ä"ú!ä, øV z"×!ä as opposed to _V a"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä as
opposed to Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä. Only first shin, first sin and first samekh verbs are
mentioned. No first s. ade conjugations can be found and it seems that the
change of taw to t. et after the s. ade was one of the few phonetic processes
recognized by the author:
47 See ...
48 That imperatives such as ç t z"ñ!ä and òBÇä are included in the symbols á ñ î and éD ò
respectively shows that the s. ere was regarded as their last vowel and the furtive patah. was
not taken into account for the purposes of establishing symbols.
chapter three
®
éãöìà ãòá åúìà ïî àöåò úéèìàá åúà äâììà ìäà ïà åìà÷ ïàô éãöìà àîàô
®
íàìëìì àôàôëúñà
As for s. ade, they said that the people of the language49 pronounced t. et
instead of taw after s. ade in order to ease pronunciation.
[FEA I , fol. v]
.... Imperatives Identical with Their Past Forms in Both the Initial
and the Final Vowel
Apart from causing new conjugational patterns and symbols to be cre-
ated, the modification of patterning principles described above led to the
exclusion of imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial
and the final vowel from the system of symbols.50 These include hitpa#el,
niph#al and first yod hiph#il imperatives inferred from imperfect forms
with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g. âp ò"ú!ä from âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), çbð"ú!ä
from çbð"úé (Dan. :), ø á g!ä from ø á g!z (Ezek. :), øKé ä from øKééå
(Ps. :).51 It is obvious that such verbs have identical initial vowels of
the imperative and the past. As to the final vowels, niph#al verbs have a
patah. in the final syllable of their past forms producing form pairs such as
m.sg. imperative ø á g!ä–m.sg. past ø a"Öð. Hitpa#el verbs were vocalized by
the author in the Babylonian manner with a patah. in the final syllable of
m.sg. past52 which produces such pairs as m.sg. imperative âp ò"ú!ä–m.sg.
past âp ò"ú!ä. Hiph#il imperatives with a patah. in the final syllable are usually
inferred from jussive and imperfect consecutive forms with a patah. and
the vocalization of the jussive is preserved in the entire conjugation,53
e.g. imperative ø ö"ô ä in the symbol épb has the past ø ö"ô!ä and the active
participle ø ö"ô î. For a first yod jussive form with a final patah. this would
result in an imperative and past form identical in both the initial and the
final vowel, as in jussive òAé (Num. :), m.sg. imperative òAÇä–m.sg.
past òAÇä.
49 In adherence to the Aristotelian-Mu#tazilite understanding of the origins of lan-
guage, Karaites saw Hebrew as created by a group of primary speakers, the so-called
‘people of the language’ (ahl al-luġa). See Gallego (), Olszowy-Schlanger (:–
).
50 FEA I , fol. r–v, r–r.
51 øKéé is construed by modern grammarians as imperfect pa#al of y.q.r. with a deviant
vocalization of the future prefix (see BDB (); Gesenius (§b, f.n. )).
52 See ...
53 See ...
the method of symbols
Although the fundamental prohibition of establishing symbols with
two identical vowels was adhered to by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, the rule
that imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial and
the final vowel must be excluded from the system of symbols is not
found in his grammars. This is because such imperatives do not play any
significant role in the system of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. In his classification,
conjugational patterns were created only for ‘imperatives in their primary
form’ and all other related imperatives had to be traced back to them.
Imperatives identical with their past forms both in the initial and the
final vowel clearly do not belong to the group of ‘imperatives in their
primary form’ and as such did not deserve a special mention. On the
contrary, in Kitāb al-#Uqūd all verbs with distinct morphological forms
were integrated into symbols so that the need arose to deal with such
cases.
Imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial and
the final vowel are described in Kitāb al-#Uqūd as secondary (far#). To
conjugate a secondary form it is necessary to establish its primary form
(as. l), i.e. the form with a s. ere in the final syllable, and to follow the
conjugational pattern given for it:
® ®
éìò àððà äì ìé÷ ®äøåëãîìà øîàåàìà äãä óéøàöú êìñî óøòð óéëå ìà÷ ïàô
® ®
éìòå äâììà óéøàöú ïåã ïî êìäúä óéøöú éìà äìúàî àîå âp ò"ú!ä ãøð äìîâìà ÷éøè
® ® ®
àãàå øáòìàå øîàìà ïéá ÷øô íìòð íì àãà äìöà éìà òøô ìë ãøð ä÷éøèìà äãä
éùá äéô íëçð íì ìöà äì íìòð íì
If somebody says: ‘How can we know the course of the paradigm of these
above-mentioned imperatives?’ it should be said to him: ‘In short, we
should refer âp ò"ú!ä and similar cases to the conjugational pattern _ l ä"ú!ä
rather than other conjugational patterns in the language. This way we refer
each secondary form to its primary form if we cannot see the difference
between the imperative and the past. But if we do not know the primary
form, we have no basis to judge about it’. [FEA I , fol. r]
... Conjugational Patterns
Introduced for a Combination of Reasons
Some conjugational patterns were introduced for a combination of rea-
sons. Thus, one finds patterns with metathesis and final guttural (both
classificational reasons), such as ç t z"ñ!ä as opposed to _ l ä"ú!ä and ì a z"ñ!ä
in the symbol á ñ î, or with a guttural and a deviant position of the tone
(a classificational and a derivational reason), such as ó ñ à ä in the symbol
ä á à as opposed to è ì n!ä in the symbol á ñ î, ã î ç ä in the symbol ä á à and
ø î g!ä in the symbol òK a.
chapter three
.. Morphological Value
of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns
The question of the nature of symbols caused some disagreement among
the researchers who studied the system. D. Becker believed that Hebrew
verbs were in the first place divided into conjugational patterns which
were then classified on the basis of symbols.54 He regarded the symbols
as pure mnemonics offered as memory props to those already familiar
with verbal paradigms. This opinion was challenged by A. Maman who
sought to see in the system of symbols a theoretical framework of ver-
bal conjugation.55 A. Maman considered that the underlying idea of this
system was that all forms in a verbal paradigm somehow depended on
the first or the last vowels of the imperative and the past and described
conjugational patterns as secondary formations within symbols. A com-
parative analysis of works using the system of symbols together with the
clues contained in comments on the system provided in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
for beginning students can contribute to determining the morphological
value of symbols and their relation to conjugational patterns.
Historically symbols seem to pre-date conjugational patterns. Indeed,
when writing about the beginnings of the system Abū al-Faraj Hārūn
does not report on earlier grammarians dividing symbols into conjuga-
tional patterns. Moreover, the JTS ENA fragment does not make use of
this division. Consider this:
® ®
äè÷ðá äøáò äçúàôá éãìà øîàìà ïà [®®®] àðì÷ àîë éðâ äèàáø éðàúìà ìöàìàå
äe!ö äe ö ø á!Ö ø á Ö ø áD ø áA êìå÷ë
The mnemonic for the second type is épb as we said … that the imperative
in a patah. has a past in a hireq,
. e.g. ø a c–ø a!c, ø a Ö–ø a!Ö, äe ö–äe!ö.
[JTS ENA .v ]
Here the author mentions two types of verbs encompassed by the symbol
épb, namely ø a c and äe ö, but does not separate them into different con-
jugational patterns. One can conclude that symbols were not originally
introduced to classify pre-existing patterns. Instead they were probably
used for establishing unattested past and imperative forms much in the
manner presented in the Diqduq by Ibn Nūh. in the course of the discus-
sion on the most probable imperative form of the past éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :):
54 Becker (:, , ).
55 Maman (a:–).
the method of symbols
Some people have … said that éð"ú î$çé cannot be derived from ä î#çé and that,
if it were derived from ä î#çé, it would be éð"ú î#çé. This is because, whenever
an imperative that has patah. on the first letter becomes a past form, there
is hireq
. under the first letter, unless the first letter of the past form is one of
the letters òçäà, in which case the first letter does not have hireq . but rather
segol … [Khan (a:–)]
Here a relation between the imperative and the past form identical
to that encoded in the symbol épb is described and used to determine
whether ä î#çé could legitimately be posited as the imperative of éð"ú î$çé.
It is not impossible that symbol words were invented to grasp such stable
relations and make them more manifest to a grammarian’s mind. This
mnemotechnical property of symbols is reflected in the Judaeo-Arabic
technical term ribāt. used for them in the JTS ENA fragment and in a few
cases in Kitāb al-#Uqūd. The literal meaning of ribāt. is ‘bond’ but the term
was applied in some Karaite works to signify ‘mnemonic.’56
That symbols were intended to hint at the past form of a verb is,
furthermore, confirmed by some statements in later grammars. In Me"or
#Ayin one reads:
éååö ìë ïëå ®úT"ô õî÷á åìù øáòä ùàø éë òãú àåù åùàø úçú àöîú øùà éååö ìë
®éðâ ïîéñäå ®úçúî äãå÷ð åìù øáòä ùàø úçú äéäé äçúô åùàøá äéäé
Whenever you find a shewa in the beginning of an imperative, know that
in the beginning of its past is a qamas. , úT"t. Whenever there is a patah. in
the beginning of an imperative, in the beginning of its past form will be a
hireq.
. The symbol is épb. [Zislin (:)]
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd predicting the past is pointed out as the sole purpose
of symbols:
® ® ®
íåìòî êìã ïàë åìå øîà ìë ïî øáòìà íìòéì úìòâ àîðà úàîàìòìà äãä ïà íìòàå
®
®äîàìò éìà âàúçé íì àäðåã ïî éãúáîìì
Take note that these symbols were created only to make the past form of
every imperative known. If a beginner knew the past without them, he
would not need the symbols. [FEA I , fol. r]
Two conclusions can be drawn from these passages. Firstly, they clearly
show the supposition that symbols determine entire verbal paradigms
to be erroneous. Secondly, they imply that the vowel of the imperative
encoded in the first vowel of the symbol be predictive of the vowel
56 ® ® ®
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd one reads: áà éäå íéøëæ àäðî øùò éãçà àôøç ïåøùòå ïàðúà óåøçìà
® ®®® ® ®® ®®
äðéá åúëàìîù àäèàáøå úùðî ìëé åä [FEA I , fol. r–v]. For a similar usage in al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄ see Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter three
of the past encoded in the last vowel of the symbol. This is possible
only if none of the symbols in the system have the same first vowel but
different second vowels. This seems to have been the case with symbols
proposed before Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. Indeed, in the set à á ä, épb, úT"t,
ì òeÖ, ïðÇk the correspondences of the vowels are unambiguous. The same
holds for the JTS ENA fragment where the symbols à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ,
äTé!Ö, ïðÇk are listed. This principle was given up by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn
who was the first to widen the range of verbs described in the frame
of the system at the cost of the predictive power of symbols. Al-Kitāb
al-Muštamil contains one ambiguous pair of symbols, namely äTé!Ö and
Çøé!Ö. At each subsequent development stage more ambiguous symbols
entered the system, i.e. á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ and later
ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à and êU a in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin.57 In the end
there remained only a few symbols with strong prognostic value.58 The
confusion resulting from the loss of the predictive power of symbols is
discussed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd in the introduction to the chapter on symbols
based on the final vowels of the imperative and the past:
® ® ®
õìëúé óéëô ïéúè÷ðá àäìë éD òå ä@ òå á ñ î éô øîàåàìà øëàåà ïàë àãà ìà÷ ïàô
® ® ® ®
äöîà÷ øáòìà éô äçúàôìà òöåî ìòâéô êìã äéìò ñáúìé ã÷ ãà áìàèìì øáòìà
® ® ® ®
íì ïàô äöîà÷ äè÷ðìà òöåî åà äè÷ð äöîà÷ìà òöåî ìòâé åà êìã ïî ñëòìàá åà
®
®ñàáúìàìà ìæé íì äèáöé øîà äì ïëé
Someone may say: ‘If the imperatives of the symbols á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò all
end in a s. ere, how can the past become clear to the student? Is not it that
this could confound him and he will form the past with a patah. instead of
a qamas. , or vice versa, or will use a hireq
. instead of a qamas. , or a qamas.
instead of a hireq?
. So, if the imperative does not establish it, there will be
no end to the confusion’. [FEA I , fol. v]
The loss of the predictive power of symbols appears to have coincided
with the introduction of conjugational patterns into the system. The
division of symbols into conjugational patterns was first implemented
by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and is a characteristic feature of his and related
grammars. Presumably, this was done for purposes of morphological
description. Indeed, since al-Kitāb al-Muštamil the system of symbols
was applied in grammars as a framework for presenting material on
57 Hence, the above-discussed passages in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin concerning
the use of symbols to predict the past must relate to the original situation when the
symbols were still unambiguous.
58 A. Maman (a:) concluded that symbols differ in their predictive power. It is
now clear that this was not the original situation.
the method of symbols
particular aspects of verbal morphology. Grammatical phenomena were
considered in every conjugational pattern in the order of the symbols
which was perceived as the most systematical way of dealing with them.
For example,
® ®
úàîàìòìà éìà ãøé ïà âàúçé òîâà óéøàöúìà éô ìàá÷úñàìà àé è÷ð çøùå
®
àäîàîúå éðâ à á ä éðòà ìàòôàìà ïî øáòìàå øîàìì äòåöåîìà
To explain the vocalization of the [prefix] yod of the future in all conjuga-
tional patterns it is necessary to turn to symbols established for imperative
and past forms of verbs, i.e. à á ä, épb and the rest of them.
[al-Kitāb al-Muštamil, FEA I , fol. r–v]
In al-Kitāb al-Muštamil the system is used three times to present ()
forms of the active and passive participles; () vocalization of future
prefixes; and () differences between conjoined and disjoined forms of
various verb types. In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the symbols form the framework
for discussing active and passive participles. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or
#Ayin the system serves to lay out verbal paradigms before a learner
of Hebrew grammar. Using it as a means of organizing morphological
material, it was apparently more important for grammarians to extend
the system so that it would describe as many verbs as possible for which
a discussed morphological phenomenon was relevant than to preserve
the predictive power of symbols.
To produce morphological descriptions in this framework, verbs with-
in symbols had to be divided into conjugational patterns based on their
morphological patterns. Thus formed, patterns represented morpho-
logically valid entities with all verbs within a pattern behaving in a
similar way. Unlike conjugational patterns the symbols are based not
on a morphological characteristic but rather on an external property
of verbs, namely their imperative/past vowel combination, which led
to their becoming secondary in morphological discourse. This can be
seen from the fact that the set of symbols used in a grammatical work
depended among other things on the principles of grouping verbs into
conjugational patterns. Thus, symbols such as ä k î, ä ì Ö, ä á à, é!ì ò and _U a
had to be newly introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd when the author decided
to establish conjugational patterns for all imperatives rather than just for
‘imperatives in their primary form.’ In this case conjugational patterns
were grouped into symbols instead of the latter being divided into con-
jugational patterns as was originally done by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.
Although the predictive value of symbols was severely diminished
by the extension of the system, their use to classify sample imperatives
chapter three
allowed their mnemonic properties to still be employed. In Kitāb al-
#Uqūd both chapters on verbal conjugation are concluded with a list
of sample imperatives belonging to each symbol. By memorizing these
lists a student was put in a position to tell to which symbol a particular
imperative belongs. He could then deduce the vowel of the past form as
it was coded in the symbol and did not have to remember it separately.59
In sum, the following picture emerges. Symbols were initially intro-
duced as mnemonics capturing regular correspondences between the
vocalization of the imperative and the past. The original symbols were
unambiguous and served to establish past forms. Starting from Harunian
grammars symbols were divided into conjugational patterns based on
morphological criteria and the system took on the role of a frame of ref-
erence for morphological descriptions with symbols as labels in the clas-
sification of conjugational patterns. As new verb types were integrated
into the system the inventory of symbols enlarged and their predictive
power was significantly compromised. Although the symbols lost their
importance in morphological reasoning, their mnemotechnical proper-
ties continued to be used for pedagogical purposes.
59 See ...
chapter four
DESCRIPTION OF A
CONJUGATIONAL PATTERN IN KITĀB AL-#UQŪD
The description of a conjugational pattern in Kitāb al-#Uqūd consists of
three components: () a set of forms of the sample verb; () a list of
imperatives structurally identical with the sample imperative given with
their source verses; () a set of tables of forms of the sample verb with
object suffixes (only in transitive conjugational patterns). Apart from
Kitāb al-#Uqūd, all three elements are found in paradigm descriptions
in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs and Me"or #Ayin. In the Harunian
grammars only the uninflected forms of sample verbs are given.
.. Sets of Forms of Sample Verbs
All known treatises using the system of symbols describe conjugational
patterns by citing certain forms of representative verbs. The set of forms
given in a particular work depends on the grammatical phenomenon
described in the frame of the system of symbols but necessarily includes
m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past.1 Thus, in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the system of
symbols is used to discuss active and passive participles of various verbs
so that the set of forms used in each conjugational pattern consists of
m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle m.sg. and passive partici-
ple m.sg. When in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil the system is used to pinpoint
differences between conjoined and disjoined verb forms, basic finite verb
forms, i.e. m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, m.sg. future are cited. In Kitāb
al-#Uqūd the system is used to lay out verbal paradigms before a learner
of Hebrew grammar. To achieve this, conjugational patterns are charac-
terized by extensive sets of forms. The long set of forms includes eighteen
forms: m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle in both genders
and numbers, passive participle in both genders and numbers (transitive
conjugations only), f.sg. imperative, f.sg. past, m.pl. imperative, m.pl.
1 See also Becker (:–).
chapter four
® ®® ®
past and four forms of the future in the order of the prefix letters úðéà.
The short set of forms includes seven forms: m.sg. imperative, m.sg.
past, active participle m.sg. and four forms of the future in the order
® ®® ®
of the prefix letters úðéà. The general tendency of the author was to use
the short set in final guttural conjugations and conjugations of hiph#il
imperatives without yod.2 The author remarked that in the two above-
mentioned sorts of patterns the only distinctive forms are those of the
short set. Consider the following:
. Regarding the conjugational pattern òÇp!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö it is stated:
® ®
è÷ô ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïÇk!ä óéøöúì óìàëé óéøöúìà àãäå
This conjugational pattern differs from the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä only
in the imperative, the past, the active participle m.sg. and the future.
[FEA I , fol. v]
. On the patterns ì v ä without yod, Öb ä3 and çép ä the author wrote:
® ® ®
àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî éä éãìà äøåëãîìà óéøàöúìà äãä äé÷á ïà áø÷éå
®
éôå ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô àìà ãåéá ìé ö ä óéøöú óìàëú àì à ä
® ®
®íìòà äììàå äôéøöú éìà òâøú óéøöúìà òéîâ
It is likely that all the above-mentioned conjugational patterns consisting
of two root letters preceded by heh differ from the conjugational pattern
ìé v ä with yod only in the imperative, the past, the active participle m.sg.,
and the future, but are identical with it in the rest of the paradigm, but God
knows. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
For conjugations of other types, the long set is normally used even if it is
stated that the pattern has only a few distinctive forms.4 For instance, the
conjugational pattern ÖÇá ä containing first guttural middle weak niph#al
verbs is characterized through a long set of forms but said to be different
from the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä only in the imperative and the future.
It will be noted that even the long set is far from including all possible
forms of a sample verb. It omits first and second person forms of the suffix
conjugation as well as all forms of the prefix conjugation which require a
suffix as well as a prefix. Some of the forms omitted in lists of uninflected
forms later appear in tables of verb forms with object suffixes but not a
single conjugational pattern presents a complete inventory of forms of
2 On hiph#il imperatives with and without yod see ...
3 Öb ä mainly contains final guttural verbs (see ...).
4 An exception are conjugations in the symbol ä á à all of which are described through
a short set of forms.
a conjugational pattern in kitāb al-#uqūd
the suffix or the prefix conjugation. Fuller paradigms can be found in
the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.5 In Me"or #Ayin sets of forms used to
characterize a paradigm are similar to those in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
Apart from the forms themselves the author sometimes supplied
grammatical explanations for certain forms of a set, compared forms and
linked between conjugational patterns. For example, in the conjugational
pattern àTO in the symbol úT"t the author provided an explanation of
imperative forms of pa#al verbs:
®
éðàøáòìà óéøàöú øéàñ óìëú àTO óéøöúå ò î"ù óéøöúå øî"ù óéøöú ïà íìòàå
®
ïéùìà úçú øî"ù ãçàåìì øîàìà ïà êàãå íéáøìì øîàìà éôå äãçàåìì øîàìà éô
®
éô äè÷ðìà úàâ åø"î!ù íéáøììå éX"î!Ö ÷ë øîàìà éô äè÷ð äãçàåìì ïéùìà úçúå àåù
® ® ® ® ® ®
éøî!ù ìá êìãë âé íìå éXåî"ù äúðåîìà øîà éâé ïà áâé ïàë ã÷å àåùìà òöåî ïéøîàìà
® ® ® ® ®
äãâé àìå íéáøìà øîàå äúðåîìà øîà éô àåùìà áìè àãà øééçú àãä èáöé íì ïîå
®
ø&î"ù åäå ãçàåìà øîà éô äãâå àîë
Take note that the conjugational pattern ø&î"Ö and the conjugational pattern
ò î"Ö and the conjugational pattern àTO differ from the rest of Hebrew
conjugations in the f.sg. imperative and the m.pl. imperative. Indeed, the
m.sg. imperative is ø&î"Ö with a shewa under the shin. But the f.sg. imperative
has a hireq
. under the shin, e.g. éX"î!Ö, and in m.pl. eø"î!Ö. The hireq
. in the two
imperatives replaces the shewa. The feminine imperative should have been
éXÇî"Ö, but it occurs not in this form but rather éX"î!Ö. He who does not learn
it will be perplexed when looking for the shewa in the f.sg. imperative and
the m.pl. imperative and not finding it as he finds it in the m.sg. imperative
ø&î"Ö. [JTS ENA .r]
Elsewhere, the pattern ä ì#ò ä in the symbol ä k î is said to be related to the
pattern äL"Ö ä inépb:!
®
øáò ìë éô ìòâú êðà øéâ ä ì#ò ä óéøöú äéìò ñé÷ú àî éðâ éô äL"Ö ä óéøöú éô øî ã÷å
® ®
:è÷ð äúìú ä ì#ò ä ïî
You should treat the conjugational pattern ä ì#ò ä by analogy with what was
mentioned in the conjugational pattern äL"Ö ä inépb!. However, you should
vocalize the past forms of ä ì#ò ä with a segol. [FEA I , fol. v]
Headings of most patterns contain grammatical information on the num-
ber of root letters and the position of the affix heh compared to the radi-
cals, e.g.:
à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî éðâ éô òáàø óéøöú
The fourth conjugational pattern of épb has two root letters preceded by a
heh. [FEA I , fol. v]
5 On the verbal paradigms included in the treatise see Khan (b:–).
chapter four
In the symbol á ñ î headings of hitpa#el conjugations contain additional
information on the morphological pattern of the verbs included, such as
the position of the taw compared to the first radical, the gemination of
the second radical or the differences between various patterns:
®
ìàòúôàìà åúå äìë óéøöúìà éô úáàú ùâãìàå ìàòúôà å úá á ñ î éô øùàò óéøöú
ìòôìà àô ãòá
The tenth conjugational pattern in á ñ î contains the taw of ifti#āl, the dagesh
is stable in the entire conjugation and the taw of ifti#āl is after the first
radical. [FEA I , fol. v]
®
óéøöúìì ÷ôàåî åäå äúáàú äöîà÷ äéôå ìàòúôà å úá á ñ î éô øùò òáàø óéøöú
®
®äçúàôìà éôðì äâéöìà éô äì óìàëî ïéùìà ãòá ìàòúôàìà å ú ïåë éô íã÷úîìà
The fourteenth conjugational pattern in á ñ î has a taw of ifti#āl and a stable
qamas. ; it agrees with the preceding conjugational pattern in the position
of the taw after the shin and differs from it in morphological form because
it does not have a [furtive] patah.
. [FEA I , fol. v]
In Me"or #Ayin headings of conjugational patterns contain the same infor-
mation (in á ñ î the headings mention only the presence of the taw) but
grammatical notes are reduced to a minimum. In the treatise on the
Hebrew verbs grammatical notes constitute a considerable part of the
text.
.. Lists of Structurally Identical Imperatives
In each conjugational pattern the set of forms of the sample imperative
is supplemented by a list of structurally identical imperatives given with
their source verses. Below is the beginning of a list in the conjugational
pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö:
íé!× éìò ñ÷å
®
íëîàá åáéø ïî áéX ùî ø÷áì åðéã ïî ïéD
®äìéìä éðéì ïî ïé!ì øéð íëì åøéð ïî øéð
áìç õéî éë ïî õé!î íëáì åúéù ïî úé!Ö
®®® ®®®
Conjugate by analogy with íé!×
áéX from í ë"n!à"á eáéX (Hos. :) ïé!c from è t"Ö!î øM&a ì eðé!c (Jer. :)
ïé!ì from ä ìé l ä éðé!ì (Ruth :) øéð from øéð í ë ì eøéð (Jer. :)
õé!î from á ì ç õé!î é!k (Prov. :) úé!Ö from í ë"a!ì eúé!Ö (Ps. :)
®®® [FEA I , fol. v–r]
a conjugational pattern in kitāb al-#uqūd
Similar but shorter lists are included in conjugational patterns in Me"or
#Ayin. In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs lists are longer and generally
include all verbs mentioned in Kitāb al-#Uqūd as a subset.
.. Tables of Forms with Object Suffixes
In many transitive conjugational patterns the set of uninflected forms
and the list of structurally identical imperatives are followed by a num-
ber of sections on various forms of the sample verb with object suffixes.
Such sections are never found in guttural conjugational patterns and in
conjugational patterns of hiph#il imperatives without yod. For no appar-
ent reason, forms with object suffixes are not provided in conjugational
patterns äVÇä in the symbol ä@ ò and á ÖÇä in the symbol éD ò. Moreover,
passive participles are excluded from the sets of forms given for these two
sample verbs.
Forms with object suffixes are arranged in tables and are supplied with
an Arabic translation or a corresponding form of the verb ìòô (‘do’). The
tables are introduced with indented headings ‘Section on so-and-so’6 and
consist of four clear cut columns.7 One finds tables of two kinds. In single
tables pronominal suffixes are added to one form of a representative verb
producing the following layout:
Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic
form form form form
+ + + +
suffix suffix suffix suffix
6 E.g. øîàìà éô ìöô. In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs paradigms are divided into
®
sections separated by an abbreviation ô which was analyzed by G. Khan (b:) as
coming from the word äçåúô used in Biblical manuscripts to signal the beginning of
certain paragraphs. A comparison with Kitāb al-#Uqūd makes it possible to understand
®
the ô as an abbreviation of the Judaeo-Arabic ìöô.
7 In her work on Latin grammatical manuscripts V. Law coined the term ‘controlled
tables’ for this layout of verbal paradigms in tables which are ‘planned from the outset
and usually introduced with headings in a different grade of script, and sometimes red as
well’ (Law (:–)). In her interpretation, controlled tables represent a high level
of visualization of language and imply that the text was supposed to be read in silence
rather than aloud. A similar tabular layout of sections on forms with object suffixes can
be observed in the manuscript FEA I of Sa#adya Gaon’s Kutub al-Luġa (see Dotan
(, plate )), however, the tables consist of two instead of four columns:
Hebrew form Arabic translation Hebrew form Arabic translation
chapter four
For example,
®äìòôà eä k ä ®àðìòôà eð k ä
eð k ä do (m.sg.) us! eä k ä do (m.sg.) him! [FEA I , fol. r]
In double tables two forms are inflected in parallel and the layout is
slightly different:
Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic
form form form form
+ + + +
suffix suffix suffix suffix
Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic Hebrew Judaeo-Arabic
form form form form
+ + + +
suffix suffix suffix suffix
For example,
®éðúìòô éð ú"ë ì"ù!ä éðìòôà éð ëé!ì"ù ä
®àðúìòô eð ú"ë ì"ù!ä ®àðìòôà eð ëé!ì"Ö ä
éð ëé!ì"Ö ä do (m.sg.) me! éð z"ë ì"Ö!ä you (m.sg.) did me
eð ëé!ì"Ö ä do (m.sg.) us! eð ú"ë ì"ù!ä you (m.sg.) did us
[FEA I , fol. v]
Inflected forms found in tables follow a certain order. As is obvious
from the following scheme, the structure varies slightly across the manu-
scripts:8
8 The schemes here are for a single table; the order of forms in a double table is the
same.
a conjugational pattern in kitāb al-#uqūd
copy copies and
uninflected form9 uninflected form
sg. pl. sg. pl.
m.sg. m.pl. m.sg. m.pl.
m.sg. m.pl. f.sg. f.pl.
f.sg. f.pl. m.sg. m.pl.
f.sg. f.pl. f.sg. f.pl.
An example of a complete table in FEA I is:
äL"ù ä ïî ìòàôìà éô ìöô
®éìòàô éN"ù î ®ìòàô äM"ù î
®êìòàô ^O"ù î ®àðìòàô eðL"ù î
®äìòàô Ç÷"Ö î ®íëìòàô í ëO"ù î
®êìòàô _L"Ö î íäìòàô íJ"Ö î
®àäìòàô !äJ"ù î ïëìòàô ï ëO"Ö î
®ïäìòàô ïJ"Ö î
Section on active participle m.sg. of äL"Ö ä
äM"Ö î the one (m.) doing éN"Ö î the one (m.) doing me
eðL"Ö î the one (m.) doing us ^O"Ö î the one (m.) doing you (m.sg.)
í ëO"Ö î the one (m.) doing you (m.pl.) Ç÷"Ö î the one (m.) doing him
íJ"Ö î the one (m.) doing them (m.) _L"Ö î the one (m.) doing you (f.sg.)
ï ëO"Ö î the one (m.) doing you (f.pl.) !äJ"Ö î the one (m.) doing her
ïJ"Ö î the one (m.) doing them (f.) [FEA I , fol. v–r]
As mentioned above, two other Karaite grammars contain paradigms of
verbs with object suffixes. Firstly, in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs
transitive verb forms are presented first in their uninflected form and
then with all grammatically admissible pronominal suffixes. Forms with
suffixes are presented in continuous text rather then columns, the order
of forms corresponding to that in copy of Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Arabic
translations of Hebrew forms are found only sporadically and mainly for
imperative bases. However, in the very first paradigm ò î"Ö many forms
with suffixes are translated into Judaeo-Arabic with corresponding forms
of ïî òîñ (‘hear from, listen to’), e.g.:
9 In the manuscripts the uninflected form is placed in the first row together with
the first form with a pronominal suffix. For this reason forms with pronominal suffixes
for singular and plural of the same person and gender appear in different rows which
obscures the structure of the table. This arrangement is, perhaps, indicative of the fact that
the tables originated in lists which were tabulated either by the author or by copists. In the
schemes tables are slightly rearranged by putting the uninflected form on a separate line.
chapter four
êðî àðòîñ ^eð#ò î"Ö ®®® éðî òîñà éð ò î"Ö
éð ò î"Ö hear me! … ^eð#ò î"Ö we heard you. [Khan (b:–)]
Secondly, in Me"or #Ayin verb forms with pronominal suffixes are found
in the conjugational pattern áé Ö ä in the symbol à á ä and in the conjuga-
tional pattern í îÇø in the symbol á ñ î.10 Inflected forms are given in lists
(with the order of forms of copies and of Kitāb al-#Uqūd) and are either
fully explained or parsed through úà äùò or ì äùò (‘do to somebody’),11
e.g.:
®
ï ëáéùî îàú êéðôì ïä øùà úåá÷ðì äùåò äéäé íàå
If one is acting towards females in front of you, say ï ë"áé!Ö"î’.
[Zislin (:)]
äúåà åùò äeî"îÇø
äeî"îÇø do (m.pl.) her! [Zislin (:)]
A comparison of the three grammars seems to indicate that although
first attempts to provide translations for Hebrew forms with pronominal
suffixes were made in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, the practice
of systematically adding translations was introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd,
presumably, for the need of students, and was later adopted in Me"or
#Ayin.
In any given conjugational pattern in Kitāb al-#Uqūd tables represent
the inflection of some but not all forms of a sample verb. Most regularly
included forms are active participles in both genders and numbers; m.sg.,
m.pl. and f.sg. imperative; m.sg., m.pl. and f.sg. past; sg. future.
Occasionally, tables are provided of first and third person past forms in
both numbers as well as pl., m.sg., f.sg., and m.sg. future forms. The
disproportion between the number of tables on sg. future and the rest
of the future forms is explained by the fact that they are analogical so
that no need was felt to include all four in every conjugational pattern.
The author instructed his readers to form future verbs by analogy with
sg.12 Final weak conjugational patterns (and the conjugational pattern
áeÖ in the symbol ì òeÖ) include a section on the infinitive construct with
10 See Zislin (:–, –).
11 Similar paraphrases, albeit in Judaeo-Arabic, are found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd in the
®
section on the infinitive úÇ÷"Ö ä in the conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä: éìà øãöîìà úãø àãàå
v
é!úÇ÷"ù ä úì÷ àîìëúî úðëå éñôð (FEA I , fol. ).
12 ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç äé÷á óìàìà éìò ñ÷å [FEA I , fol. r].
a conjugational pattern in kitāb al-#uqūd
pronominal suffixes. No conjugational pattern in Kitāb al-#Uqūd contains
tables for all these forms. Tables are never given for f.pl. imperative;
m.pl., f.pl., m.pl., f.pl. future; and f.pl. past forms. The author has, in
fact, admitted not supplying all possible verb forms but limiting himself
to those from which others can be worked out:
® ® ®
àäéìò ñà÷éì äèôì ìë ò÷åî úøëã àðà éðëéì éøéâ äéô òñúà ã÷ àîî êìã øéâ éìà
àäàåñ
… and other [forms] which were expanded upon by others. But I have
mentioned the occurrences of each word form so that similar [forms] can
be handled by analogy. [FEA I , fol. r]
In contrast, in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs all imperative, past, future
and participle forms are present in roughly the same number, including
f.pl. imperative; m.pl., f.pl., m.pl. and f.pl. future; and f.pl. past
forms absent from Kitāb al-#Uqūd (f.pl. forms are found to a lesser extent
than the rest of the forms). In certain lists, the form common to m.sg.
and f.sg. future appears twice (in transitive conjugations with a different
range of pronominal suffixes) and the same is true of f.pl. and f.pl.
future.13 Infinitive forms are given for final weak verbs only, just as in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd. One could speculate that the distribution of the given
forms reflects the authors’ intentions in providing them. Whereas in the
treatise on the Hebrew verbs completeness of the paradigm seems to have
been the aim, in Kitāb al-#Uqūd tables were probably seen as didactic
tools so that just enough forms were given to master the conjugation
and the verbal suffixes, leaving the rest to the student to recover by
analogy.
In Me"or #Ayin too few forms with object suffixes are given to analyze
the distribution of verbal categories. Interestingly, passive participles
with suffixes are included in both conjugational patterns, e.g.:
é!áùeî îàú áùåîä äúà áéùú íàå
If you return the returned one, say é!á ùeî. [Zislin (:)]
é úÇî îÇø"î øîàú êì úåéåùò ïä íàå
If they (fem.) are done by you, say é úÇî îÇø"î. [Zislin (:)]
Such forms are found neither in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs nor in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
13 See Khan (b:, –; ,, , passim).
chapter four
The order of tables in Kitāb al-#Uqūd differs from conjugational pat-
tern to conjugational pattern. However, some trends are discernible with
regard to what forms are discussed as a group, be it in two consecutive
single tables or in a double table. Firstly, imperatives are usually placed
together with second person past forms of the same gender and number.
Secondly, singular and plural participles of the same gender are grouped
together. Thirdly, sg. future is treated together with sg. past. Fourthly,
if more than one future form is discussed, the order of tables follows the
® ®® ®
alphabetical order of future prefixes úðéà. Similar principles of arrange-
ment of verb forms are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.14
Most tables contain all grammatically possible form-suffix combina-
tions, whereas ungrammatical forms are not registered. Active partici-
ples and third person forms are registered with pronominal suffixes for
all person-gender-number combinations. Imperatives and second per-
son forms are combined with first and third person suffixes. First person
forms are given with second and third person suffixes. A remark explain-
ing that not all forms can combine with any suffix is found in the conju-
gational pattern í îÇø in the symbol á ñ î:
® ®
øáòìà éô ïà øéâ äðéø÷ìàá àãä ïî àãä æééîúé àîðàå ãçàå øáòìàå íäì øîàìà
®
êìã ìå÷ú êðëîé àìå êeî"îÇø ìå÷úô óàëìàá ìáà÷é ïîì äá ìáà÷ú ïà ïëîé íäì
®øîàìà éô
The m.pl. imperative has the same form as the m.pl. past and they can
only be distinguished through context. However, you can address your
interlocutor with the m.pl. past form [by connecting it] with a kaph, e.g.
^eî"îÇø, but you cannot do it in the imperative. [FEA I , fol. v]
In some tables grammatically possible forms are omitted for no appar-
ent reason. Considering that different forms are missing in different
manuscripts they must have been omitted by scribes rather than the
author.15
In the conjugational pattern ø a c in the symbol épb tables seem to
include grammatical but semantically unsound combinations. One finds
forms of ø a c with first and second person pronominal suffixes, such as
imperative éðV"a c, past eð zY a!c, active participle m.sg. ^Y aA"î (sic!), sg.
future í ëY aA"à, and others. Given that the accusative on ø a c normally
refers to inanimate objects,16 such forms are problematic. However, the
14 See Khan (b:).
15 Tables in which not all forms are possible or not all grammatically admissible forms
are included follow the order of personal suffixes described in the schemes above.
16 BDB (–).
a conjugational pattern in kitāb al-#uqūd
®
imperative ø a c is translated into Judaeo-Arabic with áèàë, ‘speak to, with
s.o.’ This implies that pronominal suffixes on ø a c are understood in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd as referring to the person spoken to rather than things said, i.e.
éðV"a c is to be translated ‘speak to me,’ í ëY aA"à ‘I will speak to you.’ One
case of such usage is, indeed, attested in the Bible in Gen. : where
íÀ Ö"ì Çø"aA eì"ëé is interpreted by modern lexicographers as ‘they could
[not] speak unto him peaceably.’17 At present I am aware of two other
texts translating the Hebrew d.b.r., both times in pa#al, with the Arabic
® ®
h.t..b.: () al-Fāsı̄ translates ø%á c ø á c (Prov. :) as áèàëî áàèë;18 ()
˘a JTS Genizah fragment ENA .– has the translation áèàë® î for
ø áÇc.19 Similar combinations of ø a c with pronominal suffixes for the first
and second person are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.20 Yet
here ø a c is translated with ìå÷ ‘say’ which makes forms such as éðV"a c
semantically impossible.21
To sum up, the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, which was identified as
one of the sources of Kitāb al-#Uqūd, seems to have served our author
as a model for describing verbal paradigms. In this treatise a paradigm
begins with a list of the verbs of the discussed pattern which is followed by
a grammatical discussion and a near exhaustive list of forms of a sample
verb in which uninflected forms and forms with pronominal suffixes are
given together. All these elements of pattern description were absorbed
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd, however, in a modified way. The author rearranged
the order of the components, separated uninflected forms from forms
with pronominal suffixes and added systematic Arabic translations to
the latter. Besides, he cut down on explanations and structurally iden-
tical imperatives and provided reduced sets of sample forms sufficiently
extensive for students to master verbal conjugations but not cluttered
with forms which can be worked out by analogy. The author of Me"or
#Ayin adopted the system of Kitāb al-#Uqūd while further reducing the
descriptions.
17 BDB ().
18 See Skoss (–:I, ).
19 See Maman (:).
20 See Khan (b:–).
21 Khan (b:).
chapter five
SYMBOLS AND
CONJUGATIONAL PATTERNS IN KITĀB AL-#UQŪD
In this chapter I will describe the stock of verbs in all conjugational pat-
terns registered in Kitāb al-#Uqūd. In each conjugational pattern only the
m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle m.sg., passive participle
m.sg. and sg. future will be cited. Although more forms are given in the
original, these five are enough to characterize a pattern. References to
relevant derivational and classificational phenomena are given below the
pattern descriptions.
.. Symbols Based on the
Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
... Symbol à á ä
The symbol à á ä was created for verbs with a qamas. in the initial syl-
lable of their imperatives and a s. ere in the initial syllable of their past
forms. It contains six conjugations, namely áé Ö ä, ø ô ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ and
_V a.
.... Conjugational Pattern áé Ö ä with Yod
imperative áé Ö ä, past form áé!Ö ä, active participle áé!Ö î, passive participle
á Öeî,
future áé!Ö à
Verbs listed under this category are middle weak hiph#il impera-
tives which either occur in scriptio plena, e.g. áé Ö ä (Kings :), or
are inferred from forms of middle weak hiph#il verbs containing a yod,
e.g. øé ò ä inferred from øé!òé (Isa. :). Apart from that, imperatives
inferred from idiosyncratic verb forms assimilated to correspond-
ing forms of middle weak hiph#il verbs are also included, such as øé ô ä
inferred from m.sg. past form øé!ô ä (Ps. :) of the root p.r.r. in hiph#il1
1 Gesenuis (§v).
chapter five
and ïéæ ä from the sg. future ïéæ à (Job :) of the root ".z.n. in hi-
ph#il.2
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ø ô ä without Yod
imperative ø ô ä, past ø ô ä, active participle ø ô î, future ø ô à
Verbs listed under this category include a geminated second resh hiph#il
imperative ø ô ä and imperatives inferred from jussive forms of middle
weak hiph#il verbs such as íL ä from íLé (Jer. :).
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning together
middle weak and geminated verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern á Ö ä
imperative á Ö ä, past á Ö ä, active participle á Ö î, future á Ö à
The imperative á Ö ä occurs in Ezek. : and is a variant vocalization
for á Ö ä.3 Other verbs attributed to this category are hiph#il imperatives of
geminated roots vocalized with a patah. in the second syllable,4 e.g. ÷A ä,
ø ô ä, or imperatives inferred, presumably, from jussives of middle weak
final guttural hiph#il forms such as çU ä. Source verses are not given in this
conjugational pattern.
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning together
middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern çéð ä with Yod
imperative çéð ä, past çéð ä, active participle çéð î, future çéð à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are, presumably, in-
ferred from middle weak final guttural hiph#il verb forms containing a
yod, e.g. çé ô ä, çéâ ä. Source verses are not given in this conjugational
pattern.
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning together mid-
dle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on final guttural verbs see ...,
...
2 Gesenuis (§i).
3 Gesenius (§y).
4 Gesenius (§v).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern äVæ
imperative äVæ, past äTæ, active participle äVæ"î, passive participle äWÇæ"î,
future äWæ"à
Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from second gut-
tural third weak verbs in pi#el with compensatory lengthening of the
vowel preceding the guttural, e.g. ä à z from eà ú"z (Num. :). To the
same conjugational pattern although to a different morphological pat-
tern is attributed the imperative ä á ä where the initial heh is construed as a
root letter. An entire paradigm is proposed for this verb, with forms such
as the imperative ä á ä, the past ä á ä, the active participle ä á ä"î and the
passive participle ä áÇä"î. The imperative ä á ä with the meaning ‘bring!’
was suggested by Ibn Nūh. as one of the possible bases of é!á ä (Ruth
:) which was analyzed as a f.sg. imperative form.5 Alternatively, é!á ä
is explained in the Diqduq either as an infinitive àé!á ä with the elision of
the aleph or as a f.sg. form of the imperative ä á ä attested in Gen. :.6
In Me"or #Ayin a paradigm is given which is similar to that in Kitāb al-
#Uqūd but the imperative and m.sg. past form are spelled with an aleph
(à á ä, à á ä) whereas the rest of the forms are final heh. The reference form
in Me"or #Ayin is eá ä (Sam. :).
The active participle form äVæ"î exhibits the interchange of segol and
s. ere characteristic for the non-standard Tiberian vocalization.7 In the
manuscripts of Kitāb al-#Uqūd this phenomenon is attested in some
forms of final heh verbs.
The future prefix aleph is vocalized with a simple shewa instead of the
hataph
. . i.e. äWæ"à. The use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph
patah, .
patah. is very common in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and is a feature of the archaic
Tiberian vocalization.8 It has no bearing on the pronunciation and is
connected with the fact that both the vocalic shewa and the hataph. patah.
were pronounced as a short /a/ in the Tiberian reading tradition.9
5 See Khan (a:, on Ruth :).
6 These two explanations are also found in a grammatical commentary on the Bible
in Judaeo-Persian (see Khan (b:, –)).
7 On the non-standard Tiberian vocalization see, for example, Diez-Macho
(:); Dotan (:–); Eldar (:–); Morag (, :–);
Sáenz-Badillios (:–). The manuscripts of Kitāb al-#Uqūd exhibit a number of
elements of this vocalization, most of which are sporadic and none can be shown to be
authorial.
8 Diez-Macho (:); Dotan (:).
9 Morag (:–).
chapter five
On compensatory lengthening see ...; on attributing verbs of
different morphological patterns to one conjugational pattern see ..;
.... Conjugational Pattern _V a
imperative _V a, past _U a, active participle _V á"î, passive participle _TÇá"î,
future not given
All imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from second
guttural verbs in pi#el with compensatory lengthening of the vowel pre-
ceding the guttural, e.g. ÖV à from ÖV à"z (Deut. :).
On compensatory lengthening see ...; on the vocalization of
m.sg. past forms of pi#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see
...
.. Symbol épb.
The symbol épb was created for verbs with a patah. in the initial syllable
of their imperatives and a hireq . in the initial syllable of their past forms.
This symbol contains twenty conjugational patterns, namely ä k ä, ìé v ä,
ì v ä, Öb ä, çép ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a, ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä,
ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, ò z"ò z and ì à"î"× ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern ä k ä
imperative ä k ä, past ä k!ä, active participle ä k î, passive participle ä k%î,
future ä k à
Most imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ä k ä are inferred
from hiph#il forms of first nun third weak verbs, e.g. ä v ä from ev!ä
(Num. :). The imperative äb ä inferred from äbiå in Lament. :, now
interpreted as an imperfect consecutive form of the root y.g.h. in pi#el
with the elision of the first radical yod10 also belongs to ä k ä. An identical
analysis of the form äbiå can be found in the Diqduq by Ibn Nūh. 11
.
.... Conjugational Pattern ìé v ä with Yod
imperative ìé v ä, past ìé!v!ä, active participle ìé!v î, passive participle ì veî,
future ìé!v à
10 Gesenius (§u); BDB ().
11 See Khan (a:, on Lament. :).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
Verbs listed under this category are imperatives inferred from first nun
hiph#il forms which occur with a yod, e.g. ãéb ä from ãéb î (Isa. :). To
the same conjugational pattern is attributed the imperative úé q ä inferred
from a middle weak participle úé!q î (Jer. :) with aramaising gemina-
tion of the first radical.
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning together verbs
of different binyanim and gezarot see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ì v ä without Yod
imperative ì v ä, past ì v!ä, active participle ì v î, future ì v z
Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ì v ä are inferred from
hiph#il jussive forms of first nun verbs, e.g. ì v ä from ì v z (Ps. :). The
imperative õ t ä is inferred from a first nun noun of instrument õ t î in Jer.
: which is interpreted in Kitāb al-#Uqūd as an active participle.
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern Öb ä
imperative Öb ä, past Öb!ä, active participle Öb î, future Öb à
Imperatives listed under this category are inferred from:
. hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of first nun third guttural verbs,
e.g. òb ä from òb zå (Ex. :);
. hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of middle weak third guttural
verbs with aramaising gemination of the first radical, e.g. çp ä from çpiå
(Kings :);
. the imperative Öb ä is inferred from a pausal hiph#il imperfect consec-
utive form Öbiå (Judg. :) of the root n.g.š.;
. the imperative ú v ä is inferred from a hiph#il imperfect consecutive
form ú viå (Lament. :) of the root y.s. .t. which is vocalized in the
Babylonian manner in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.12
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ..; on the vocalization of ú viå see ..; on patterning together
verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on patterning pausal
forms see ...
12 The Tiberian vocalization of this form is ú viå.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern çép ä
imperative çép ä, past çép!ä, active participle çép î, future çép à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
hiph#il forms containing a yod of:
. first nun third guttural verbs, e.g. òéb ä from eòébé (Ps. :);
. first yod second s. ade third guttural verbs, e.g. òé v ä from òé!vé (Isa. :);
. middle weak third guttural verbs with aramaising gemination of the
first radical, e.g. the sample imperative çép ä (source verse not given).
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and
gezarot see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ä lb
imperative ä lb, past ä lb, active participle ä lâ"î, passive participle ä lâ"î,
future ä lâ"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
pi#el forms of third weak verbs, e.g. ä k a from ä k á"î (Jer. :).
On the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph
with a simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ìâ ä
imperative ä ìâ ä, past ä ìâ!ä, active participle ä ìâ î, passive participle ä ìâ%î,
future ä ìâ à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
hiph#il forms of third weak verbs, e.g. äV"á ä from éðV"á úå (Sam. :).
.... Conjugational Pattern ø a c
imperative ø a c, past ø a!c, active participle ø aA"î, passive participle ø aH"î,
future ø aA"à
Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from pi#el forms of
strong and final aleph verbs, e.g. ápb from é ápâ"î (Jer. :) and à tU from
à tU"î (Jer. :) respectively. In FEA I the imperative á gé is inferred
from á gé (Ps. :) which is a hiph#il jussive form of the root n.š.b. In
FEA I á gé is inferred from eá"yéå (Ezek. :) which is a pi#el future
form of y.š.b.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
On the vocalization of m.sg. past forms of pi#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on the patterning of final aleph verbs see ..;
on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..;
on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with
a simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ò l a
.... Conjugational Pattern ç aæ
.... Conjugational Pattern í çU
Descriptions of conjugational patterns ()–() in the symbol épb have not
survived. In the list of symbols and conjugational patterns at the end of
the chapter ‘On the imperatives which differ in their first vowel from
the past verb forms derived from them and on related matters’ these
conjugations are represented by sample imperatives ò l a, ç aæ, and í çU.
In Me"or #Ayin conjugational patterns ç aæ and í çð have been preserved.
Imperatives attributed to ç aæ are inferred from active participles of third
guttural pi#el verbs with a furtive patah,. e.g. ç t ñ from ç t ñ"î (Hab. :).
Imperatives attributed to í çð are inferred from second guttural pi#el
forms with virtual gemination, e.g. ø ä è from ø ä è (Ezek. :). In all
probability these conjugational patterns were defined in the same way
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd. It can also be conjectured that imperatives attributed
to the conjugational pattern ò l a were inferred from pi#el forms of third
guttural verbs with a patah. on the second radical.
On patterning verbs with virtual gemination see ...; on final gut-
tural verbs see ..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern _é ì"Ö ä with Yod13
imperative _é ì"Ö ä, past _é!ì"Ö!ä, active participle _é!ì"Ö î, passive participle
_ ì"Ö%î, future _é!ì"Ö à
Most imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are attested
hiph#il imperatives of strong verbs, e.g. ì aâ ä (Ex. :). One imperative
is inferred from a strong hiph#il participle form, namely ìé câ ä inferred
from ìé!câ î (Ps. :).
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ...
13 In the surviving manuscripts, all imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern
are spelled without the yod. The yod is added here for the sake of clarity.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern â ì"Ö ä without Yod
imperative â ì"Ö ä, past _ ì"Ö!ä, active participle _ ì"Ö î, future â ì"Ö à14
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
jussive forms of strong verbs in hiph#il, e.g. _ ì"Ö ä from _ ì"Ö úå (Dan. :).
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ø ö"ô ä
imperative ø ö"ô ä, past ø ö"ô!ä, active participle ø ö"ô î, future ø ö"ô à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern either occur with a
patah. in the final syllable, e.g. ø ö"ô ä (Sam. :), ø Öé ä (Ps. :), or are
inferred from jussive forms of third guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ò a"Ö ä
from ò a"Öiå (Gen. :).
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òé a"Ö ä [with Yod]15
imperative òé a"Ö ä, past òé!a"Ö!ä, active participle òé!a"Ö î, future òé!a"Ö à
Imperatives listed under this category are inferred from forms of third
guttural hiph#il verbs which contain a yod, e.g. çé zY ä from çé!zYé (Job
:).
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ëYE ä
imperative ä ëYE ä, past ä ëYE!ä, active participle ä ëYE î, passive participle
and future not given
The conjugational pattern ä ëYE ä contains imperatives inferred from
exceptional hiph#il forms with a shewa instead of a hireq . on the second
radical, e.g. ä ëYE ä from eëYEiå (Jer. :), and äL"aE ä from e÷"aEiå (Sam.
:). The shewa was preserved in the entire paradigm by adding a final
vowel with the mater lectionis heh to the end of forms.
14 In this paradigm forms of â ì"Ö ä and _ ì"Ö ä are mixed.
15 In the surviving manuscripts, all imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern
are spelled without the yod. The yod is added here for the sake of clarity.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on proposing imperative
bases structurally identical with attested forms see ..
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ÖO a
imperative ä ÖO a, past ä ÖO!a, active participle ä ÖO á"î, passive participle
ä ÖO%á"î, future ä ÖO á"à
This conjugational pattern was created to include imperatives inferred
from forms of strong pi#el verbs in which gemination is reduced when
the following vowel is a vocalic shewa, e.g. ä ÖO a from é ÖO á"î (Ps. :),
ä ç"ì Ö from eç"ì!ù (Ps. :), ä à"ì î from íeà"ì îéå (Sam. :). The imper-
ative äV"ô Ö attributed to this pattern is inferred from äT"ô!Ö íé î Ö Ççeø"a
(Job :). Although today äT"ô!Ö is interpreted as a noun meaning
‘fairness, clearness of sky,’16 most medieval Karaite grammarians under-
stood it as a verb with the sense of ‘He made beautiful.’17 The shewa
on the second radical of the attested forms was preserved in the entire
paradigm by adding a final vowel with the mater lectionis heh to the end
of forms.
On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on proposing imperative
bases structurally identical with attested forms see .; on the non-
standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple
shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ì aY k
imperative ì aY k, past ì aY!k, active participle ì aY ë"î, passive participle
ì aY%ë"î, future ì aY ë"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
pi#el forms of strong quadriliteral verbs, such as ì aY k from ì aY%ë"î
(Chron. :). æ ÖY t (Job :), now analyzed as pi#lel,18 was consid-
ered quadriliteral by medieval grammarians19 and is also attributed here.
Additionally, ø a"Öð is inferred from the dubious é!zY a"Öð (Ezek. :). A pilpel
verb ìb"ìb is also discussed under the conjugational pattern ì aY k.
On the vocalization on the m.sg. past form of quadriliteral verbs
with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on the root structure of
16 BDB ().
17 See Khan (a:, on Job : and b:); Zislin (:).
18 Gesenius (§).
19 See Neubauer (:); Skoss (–:I, ).
chapter five
pilpel verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the
future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see
....
.... Conjugational Pattern ò z"ò z
imperative ò z"ò z, past ò z"ò!z, active participle ò z"ò ú"î, passive participle
missing, future ò z"ò ú"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
quadriliteral and pilpel forms ending in a guttural, e.g. ò z"ò z from ò z"ò ú"î!k
(Gen. :). One of the imperatives on the list is çð"ò t inferred
from çð"ò t úð"ô ö (Gen. :), now commonly understood as a Egyp-
tian proper name meaning ‘the god speaks and he lives.’20 In the
Middle Ages, çð"ò t was analyzed as a verb meaning ‘to reveal, to eluci-
date.’21
On final guttural verbs see ..., ..; on the root structure of
pilpel verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the
future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph . patah. see
....
.... Conjugational Pattern ì à"î"× ä
imperative ì à"î"× ä, past ìé!à"î"×!ä, active participle ìé!à"î"× î, future ìé!à"î"× à
ì à"î"× ä inferred from the quadriliteral hiph#il ä ìé!à"î"× àå (Gen. :) is the
only imperative attributed to this conjugational pattern. The author states
that no other Hebrew verbs with this morphological pattern are known
to him.
... Symbol úT"t
The symbol úT"t includes four conjugational patterns for verbs with a
shewa in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a qamas. in the initial
syllable of their past forms: äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, and àTO. The description of
this symbol is only partially preserved.
20 BDB ().
21 See Khan (b:–); Neubauer (:–); Skoss (–:II, ).
See also Ben Yehuda (, n. ).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern äð"a
imperative äð"a, past äð a, active participle äðÇa, passive participle éeð a,
future äð"á à
This conjugational pattern includes third weak imperatives in pa#al, e.g.
ä ì"à from úé!ì à (Judg. :).
On patterning first aleph verbs in pa#al together with first strong see
...
.... Conjugational Pattern ø&î"Ö
.... Conjugational Pattern ò î"Ö
Of the sections on the conjugational patterns ø&î"Ö and ò î"ù only the
discussion of the f.sg. participle is preserved. The sample verbs of these
conjugational patterns can be found in the list of conjugations in the end
of the chapter ‘On the imperatives which differ in their first vowel from
the past verb forms derived from them and on related matters.’ Due to
the lack of lists of imperatives belonging to these conjugational patterns,
it is not possible to know how non-guttural verbs for which neither
imperatives nor future forms are attested in the Bible were distributed
between the patterns ø&î"Ö and ò î"Ö. Elsewhere in the text ìâY with a patah.
and ï&úð with a holam
. are registered.22 In Me"or #Ayin the patterns are
preserved but only one hypothetical imperative is quoted, namely ñ&úð
from eñ"úð (Job :). In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs all hypothetical
imperatives have an /a/ in the second syllable which suggests that the
patah. was regarded as the default vowel.23 In the Diqduq and in al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ pa#al imperatives with a holam
. and a patah. are sometimes
presented as alternatives.24
.... Conjugational Pattern àTO
This conjugational pattern was created to account for third aleph verbs
in pa#al, e.g. à ì"z from íé!àeì"z (Deut. :). It is noteworthy, that stative
imperatives (à î"ö, àð"×, à ì"î, àTé) are included in the pattern together with
the active ones. It is not clear whether the author proposed for such
imperatives past forms of the type of pa#al or pa#el.
22 FEA I , fol. r–v.
23 Khan (b:).
24 See Khan (a:); Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five
... Symbol ì òeÖ
The symbol ì òeÖ includes verbs with a shuruq in the initial syllable of
their imperatives and a qamas. in the initial syllable of their past forms. It
consists of two conjugational patterns, namely áeÖ and òeð.
.... Conjugational Pattern áeÖ
imperative áeÖ, past á Ö, active participle á Ö, future áeÖ à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from the
following pa#al forms:
. future, imperfect consecutive, past and participle forms of middle waw
verbs, e.g. õec from õeã z (Job :), ìeî from ì îiå (Gen. :), Öeî
from é!z"Ö îe (Zech. :) and ìeæ from íé!ìf ä (Isa. :);
. past forms of middle yod verbs, e.g. õe÷ from õJå (Isa. :);25
. the imperative íez is inferred from the metaplastic past form eð"î z
(Ps. :) of the geminated root t.m.m.
On deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disregard-
ing other instances of the same verb see .; on middle weak verbs,
including the attribution of attested forms to middle waw vs. middle yod
bases, passive participles, and jussive and imperfect consecutive forms of
middle weak verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òeð
imperative òeð, past òð, active participle òð, future òeð à
Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from middle waw
third guttural verb forms in pa#al, e.g. çeð from çeðé (Ex. :).
On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to
middle waw vs. middle yod bases, passive participles, and jussive and
imperfect consecutive forms of middle weak verbs see ...
... Symbol ïðÇk
The symbol ïðÇk includes two conjugational patterns for verbs with a
holam
. in the initial syllable of the imperative and a patah. in the initial
syllable of the past form, namely á&ñ and òð.
25 õJ is now analyzed as having the root q.y.s. ‘spend the summer’ rather than q.w.s.
. .
‘feel a loathing’ (BDB (–, )).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern á&ñ
imperative á&ñ, past á ñ, active participle á ñ, future á&ñ à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from the
following verbs in pa#al:
. forms of geminated verbs, e.g. ìS from é!ú`K (Job. :);
. f.sg. imperative forms of middle weak verbs with long /o/, e.g. Ö&a from
é!ÖÇa (Isa. :);
. jussive forms of middle waw verbs, e.g. ãð from ãð z (Jer. :).
On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..;
on imperative bases of jussive forms of middle weak verbs see
...
.... Conjugational Pattern òð
imperative òð, past òð, active participle not given, future òÇð à
The imperative òð must have been inferred from the infinitive absolute
form òð of the middle weak root n.w.#. in pa#al attested in Isa. :
and Ps. : (cf. imperative òeð in the conjugational pattern òeð in the
symbol ì òeÖ). Other imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern
are inferred from forms of geminated guttural verbs in pa#al, e.g. ç&ö from
eç ö (Lament. :).
On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on
deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disregarding
other instances of the same verb see ..
... Symbol äTé!Ö
The symbol äTé!Ö includes verbs with a hireq . in the initial syllable of the
imperative and a qamas. in the initial syllable of the past. It contains six
conjugational patterns: íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern íé!×
imperative íé!×, past í ×, active participle í ×, future íé!× à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from
pa#al forms of middle weak verbs with explicit yod, e.g. áéX from eáéX
(Hos. :), ïé!ì from éðé!ì (Ruth :). Furthermore, the imperative ïé!ä is
inferred from eðé!ä zå (Deut. :) which today is construed as a hiph#il
chapter five
‘regard as easy, make light’26 rather then a pa#al. The analysis of the author
of Kitāb al-#Uqūd correlates with al-Fāsı̄’s interpretation of eðé!ä zå as íúòîè
‘wish, strive.’27
On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to
middle waw vs. middle yod bases and passive participles of middle weak
verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern çé!×
imperative çé!×, past ç ×, active participle ç ×, future çé!× à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from
pa#al forms of middle weak third guttural verbs with explicit yod, e.g.
çé!× from eçé!× (Judg. :).
On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to
middle waw vs. middle yod bases and passive participles of middle weak
verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ïÇk!ä
imperative ïÇk!ä, past ïÇëð or ïÇkð, active participle ïÇëð, future ïÇk à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from:
. niph#al forms of middle weak verbs, e.g. ïÇa!ä from ïÇáð (Gen. :);
. niph#al forms of geminated verbs with holam,
. e.g. ìÇb!ä from elâðå (Isa.
:);
. imperfect and imperfect consecutive forms of geminated verbs in pa#al
with aramaising gemination of the first radical, e.g. íÇz!ä from í&z!zå
(Gen. :), íÇg!ä from íÇgé (Jer. :, :, :).
The active participle f.sg. is vocalized in the extant manuscript in the
Babylonian manner äðÇëð with a qamas. .
On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..; on
the vocalization of f.sg. participle forms of middle weak and geminated
niph#al verbs see ..; on the auxiliary vowel status of the h. olam see ...
26 BDB ().
27 See Skoss (–:I, ).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern òÇp!ä
imperative òÇp!ä, past òÇðð, active participle òÇðð, future òÇp!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
niph#al forms of middle weak third guttural roots, e.g. òÇp!ä from òÇpé
(Amos :), çÇh!ä from çÇh!ä (Lev. :).
On the auxiliary vowel status of the holam
. see ..; on the Babylonian
type vocalization of sg. future prefixes of niph#al verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ÷ n!ä
imperative ÷ n!ä, past ÷ îð or í cð, active participle ÷ îð, future ÷ n!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from:
. geminated niph#al verbs, e.g. á q!ä from ea qé (Ezek. :);
. metaplastic middle weak niph#al forms, namely ø n!ä from the pausal
past ø îð (Jer. :) and â q!ä from the future â qé (Micah :);
. first nun pa#al verb forms, e.g. ì g!ä from ì gé (Deut. :);
. the imperative ò z!ä is inferred from a first nun pausal niph#al past form
eò zð (Job :).
The active participles m.sg. and f.sg. are vocalized in the Babylonian
manner: ÷ îð with a patah. instead of a qamas. and ä w îð without the
reduction of the first qamas. respectively. This vocalization of the m.sg.
participle led the author to construe the patah. on the first radical as an
auxiliary vowel stable in the entire conjugation.28
On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..;
on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..;
on patterning passive forms see ..; on the concept of the auxiliary
vowel see ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of f.sg. participles
and the sg. future prefixes of niph#al verbs see ..; on the Babylonian
type vocalization of the m.sg. participle ÷ îð see ...
®
28 äðàæåà øéàñ éôå óéøöúìà äéàäð éìà íàîìà úçú úáú ®
ú äçúàôìà éãìà ÷ î!ä [FEA I ,
fol. r].
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern _ea!ä
imperative _ea!ä, past _eáð, active participle _eáð, future _ea!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from:
. middle weak niph#al forms with shuruq, namely sg. past, e.g. ïea!ä from
é!úÇðeáð (Isa. :), active participle plural, e.g _ea!ä from íé!ëeáð (Ex.
:) and infinitive construct, e.g. ×ec!ä from ×ec!ä"k (Isa. :);
. the imperative íez!ä is inferred from a deviant imperfect pa#al form
í%z!z (Ezek. :) of the root t.m.m. with aramaising gemination of
the first radical;
. the imperative _ez!ä is inferred from a noun _ez!ä"k (Ezek. :) with
the root n.t.k. _ez!ä was most probably interpreted as an infinitive
construct analogous to ×ec!ä. Indeed, al-Fāsı̄ translated _ez!ä with an
infinitive of the VII form áàáöðà.29
The /u/ on the first radical of the attested forms was understood by
the author as an auxiliary vowel stable in the entire paradigm30 so that
the rest of the forms in the conjugational pattern are reconstructed
to have the same vowel. Forms with a holam . on the first radical are
attributed to the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä. The active participle f.sg.
is vocalized in the Babylonian manner ä ëeáð with an unreduced qa-
mas. .
On deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disre-
garding other instances of the same verb see .; on patterning together
verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on the concept of the
auxiliary vowel see ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of f.sg. par-
ticiples and the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ...
... Symbol ä ì Ö
The newly created symbol ä ì Ö includes verbs with a s. ere in the initial
syllable of the imperative and a qamas. in the initial syllable of the past
and contains two conjugational patterns: ÖÇá ä and òÇø ä.
29 See Skoss (–:II, ).
®
30 äðàæåà øéàñ éôå äúéàäð éìà óéøöúìà éô úáú ® ®
ú åàåìà áì÷ éô äè÷ðìà åà âæìà éãìà _eá!ä
[FEA I , fol. r].
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern ÖÇá ä
imperative ÖÇá ä, past ÖÇáð, active participle ÖÇáð, future ÖÇá à
Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ÖÇá ä are inferred
from:
. future forms in /o/ of stative middle weak verbs in pa#al, e.g. ÖÇá ä from
eÖ&áé, ä ÖÇá à (Jer. :);
. first guttural middle weak verbs in niph#al, e.g. íÇä ä from íÇä zå (Ruth
:);
. geminated first guttural niph#al verbs with holam,
. e.g. õÇø ä from õÇøðå
(Eccl. :).
The active participle f.sg. is vocalized in the Babylonian manner ä ÖÇáð
with a qamas. .
On patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see
..; on patterning middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on the
Babylonian vocalization of f.sg. participles of middle weak and gemi-
nated niph#al verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òÇø ä
imperative òÇø ä, past òÇøð, active participle òÇøð, future òÇø à
The imperative òÇø ä was most probably inferred from the geminated first
guttural niph#al future òÇøé (Prov. :, :) of the root r.#.#. No other
imperatives are listed under this conjugational pattern. According the
Me"or #Ayin òÇø ä is the only verb of its kind.31
On patterning gutturals see ....
... Symbol Çøé!Ö
The symbol Çøé!Ö includes verbs with a hireq
. in the initial syllable of their
imperatives and a holam
. in the initial syllable of their past forms. It
contains three conjugational patterns: ÖLe!ä, õ òe!ä, and òBe!ä.
31 See Zislin (:).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ÖLe!ä
imperative ÖLe!ä, past ÖKÇð, active participle ÖJÇð, future ÖLe!à
All imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
niph#al forms of first yod (originally first waw) verbs, e.g. ø öe!ä from ø öÇð
(Isa. :).
On the Babylonian type vocalization of the sg. future prefix of niph#al
verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern õ òe!ä
imperative õ òe!ä, past õ òÇð, active participle õ òÇð, future õ òe!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern include the second
guttural niph#al imperative õ òe!ä inferred from the imperfect consecutive
õ òeiå (Kings :, passim) and third guttural niph#al imperatives vocal-
ized with patah, . e.g. òAe!ä (source verse not given).
On verbs with gutturals see ..., ...; on the Babylonian type
vocalization of the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òBe!ä
imperative òBe!ä, past òAÇð, active participle ò@Çð, future òBe!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
pausal third guttural niph#al forms vocalized with s. ere and furtive patah,
.
e.g. òBe!ä from òBe!z (Prov. :).
On patterning pausal forms see ..; on verbs with gutturals see
..., ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of the sg. future prefix
of niph#al verbs see ...
... Symbol ä k î
The symbol ä k î was newly created by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd
for verbs with a patah. in the initial syllable of the imperative and a
segol in the initial syllable of the past. It contains six conjugational pat-
terns, namely ä ì#ò ä, ã î#ò ä without yod, ãé î#ò ä with yod, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä and
ì àâ à.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ì#ò ä
imperative ä ì#ò ä, past ä ì#ò ä, active participle ä ì#ò î, future ä ì#ò à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
guttural third weak verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ä ì#ç ä from eì$ç ä (Hos. :). The
vocalization of the past form ä ì#ò ä with a hataph
. patah. instead of the
hataph
. segol is a feature of non-standard Tiberian vocalization. Such use
of a wrong hataph
. or of a simple shewa instead of a hataph
. vowel is found
in some Genizah Bible fragments with otherwise Tiberian vocalization
and in some Karaite Bible manuscripts in Arabic script.32
On patterning verbs with gutturals see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ã î#ò ä without Yod
imperative ã î#ò ä, past ã î#ò ä, active participle ã î#ò î, future ã î#ò à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
jussive forms of first guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ã î#ò ä from ã î#òiå (Ps.
:).
On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning verbs with
gutturals see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of ã î#ò ä
with a hataph
. patah. instead of a hataph
. segol see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ãé î#ò ä with Yod
imperative ãé î#ò ä, past ãé!î#ò ä, active participle ãé!î#ò î, future ãé!î#ò à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
forms of first guttural verbs in hiph#il which contain a yod, e.g. ÷é ì#ç ä from
÷é!ì#ç î (Prov. :).
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning verbs with
gutturals see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of ãé!î#ò ä
with a hataph
. patah. instead of a patah. segol see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern äV#ç z
imperative äV#ç z, past äT#ç z, active participle äW#ç ú"î, future äW#ç ú"à
The imperative äV#ç z is inferred from äW#ç ú"z (Jer. :) which is a rare
form explained by modern scholars either as a tiph#el form of h.r.h.33 or as
.
32 Khan (:–).
33 Gesenius (§:).
chapter five
a denominative verb derived from äT#ç z.34 Other imperatives attributed
to this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural pi#el forms
with deviant vocalization, i.e. äV#ç à from eø$ç à (Judg. :) and ä î#çé from
éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :).
On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberi-
an vocalization of äT#ç z with a hataph
. patah. instead of a hataph
. segol see
...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix
aleph with a shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern äVæ"ò ä
imperative äVæ"ò ä, past äTæ"ò ä, active participle äWæ"ò î, future äVæ"ò à
The conjugational pattern äVæ"ò ä was created to account for first guttural
hiph#il forms with a shewa instead of a hireq . under the second radical,
e.g. íéXæ"ò î (Chron. :). Similar to ä ëYE ä in the symbol épb, all forms
proposed for äVæ"ò ä preserve the shewa under the second radical which
is achieved by adding a mater lectionis heh in the end of the forms in
the manner of final weak verbs. The approximation to final weak verbs
is equally obvious in the f.sg. past form äúøæòä with taw. The form is
vocalized ä úYæ"ò ä in Kitāb al-#Uqūd35 but should probably be read ä úUæ"ò ä
(cf. the vocalization of the attested ä ú à"a"ç ä in Josh. :).36
On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberi-
an use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph . vowel see ...; on the
interchange of segol and s. ere in forms of final heh verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ì àâ à
imperative ì àâ à, past ì àâ à, other forms not given
The imperative ì àâ à is the only verb in this conjugational pattern. The
past form ì àâ à is inferred from é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :). In Me"or #Ayin the
active participle ì àâ à"î and the future ì àâ à#à are derived from the imper-
ative ì àâ à.37 This shows that the verb was interpreted as a quadriliteral
with the aleph as its initial radical. The same follows from T-S K.r
where ì àâ à is included in the chapter on verbs with four radicals along-
side such imperatives as ìb"ìb, ì k"ì k, ìbY z.
34 Joüon-Muraoka (§:).
35 FEA I , fol. r.
36 Me"or #Ayin has ä úTæ"ò ä (Zislin (:)).
37 See Zislin (:).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
Hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs in which the prefix is aleph instead of heh
caused some debate among Karaite grammarians. According to Ibn Nūh.
one scholar maintained that in eì"ìÇz"Ö à (Ps. :), ø a ç"ú à (Chron.
:), ä ì"ì"î%à (Isa. :) and é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :) the aleph has taken the
place of the heh.38 Another scholar has said that in all these cases the
aleph belongs to the base. The first opinion is registered in al-Kitāb al-
Kāfı̄ where Abū al-Faraj Hārūn stated that the aleph’s in ø a ç"ú à, é!z"ì àâ à
and eì"ìÇz"Ö à substitute for the heh, since these are past forms and the
aleph does not belong to the root of these verbs.39 On the contrary, our
author clearly adhered to the second view.
On patterning guttural verbs see ....
... Symbol ä á à
The symbol ä á à was newly created by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd to
account for first guttural niph#al forms with a s. ere in the initial syllable
of the imperative and a segol in the initial syllable of the past. It contains
three conjugational patterns, namely ã î ç ä, Öð à ä and ó ñ à ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern ã î ç ä
imperative ã î ç ä, past ã î"çð, active participle ã î"çð, future ã î ç à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
future and imperfect consecutive forms of first guttural niph#al verbs, e.g.
á ö ò ä from á ö òé (Eccl. :).
On patterning guttural verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern Öð à ä
imperative Öð à ä, past Öð#àð, active participle Öð#àð, future Öð à à
Verbs attributed to this conjugational pattern are first guttural niph#al
imperatives Öð à ä and ø ö ò ä with a patah. in the final syllable. Source verses
are not given in this pattern. Presumably, Öð à ä was inferred from the
pausal imperfect consecutive form Öð àiå (Sam. :) and ø ö ò ä from
the third resh imperfect form ø ö ò z (Sam. :).
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian
use of a hataph
. patah. instead of a hataph
. segol see ....
38 See Khan (a:, on Ps. :).
39 Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ó ñ à ä
imperative ó ñ à ä, past ó ñ#àð, active participle ó ñ#àð, future ó ñ à à
The imperative ó ñ à ä is the only verb mentioned under this conjugational
pattern. It must have been inferred from the imperfect consecutive form
ó ñ àiå (Gen. :, passim) exhibiting stress recession.
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian
use of a hataph
. patah. instead of a hataph
. segol see ....
The author created conjugational patterns ã î ç ä, Öð à ä and ó ñ à ä to
explain why attested imperfect consecutive niph#al forms have different
final vowels. This problem is also addressed in the treatise on the Hebrew
verbs. Here the difference between forms with segol vs. s. ere in the final
syllable is explained by the position of the stress rather than a different
imperative base.40 Regarding the forms with patah. vs. s. ere two opinions
are reported. Sa#ı̄d Šı̄rān maintained that the vowel becomes patah. on
the account of the form being conjoined. Yet the author of the treatise
considered the possibility that forms with patah. have a homologous
imperative base with final /a/.41
... Symbol é!ì ò
The symbol é!ì ò was newly created by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd to
account for first resh niph#al forms with a s. ere in the initial syllable of
their imperatives and a hireq
. in the initial syllable of their past forms. It
contains three conjugational patterns which differ in the last vowel of the
imperative or the past, namely íAT ä, à ôT ä and ä àT ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern íAT ä
imperative íAT ä, past íAYð, active participle í@Yð, future íAT à
The imperative íAT ä is inferred from the pausal imperfect consecutive
form íATiå (Jonah :). The final patah. in the attested form is regarded as
a primary vowel of this conjugation and is carried over to the imperative
and the rest of the forms of the future. No other verbs are attributed to
this pattern.
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on patterning pausal forms
see ...
40 See Khan (b:–).
41 See Khan (b:–).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern à ôT ä
imperative à ôT ä, past à tYð, active participle à tYð, future à ôT à
This conjugational pattern is intended for first resh niph#al forms with
final s. ere. The imperative à ôT ä inferred from à ôT z (Jer. :) is the only
verb mentioned in this conjugational pattern and it is stated that no other
verbs with this morphological pattern are attested.42 The past form is
vocalized à tYð with a patah. instead of the expected qamas. .
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on final aleph verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ä àT ä
imperative ä àT ä, past ä àYð, active participle ä àYð, future not given
The conjugational pattern ä àT ä is intended for first resh third weak
niph#al forms, e.g. ä öT ä from eöTé (Lev. :).
On patterning guttural verbs see ....
... Symbol _U a
The symbol _U a newly introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd for verbs with a s. ere
in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a patah. in the initial syllable
of their past forms contains one conjugational pattern ä × ò ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern ä × ò ä
imperative ä × ò ä, past ä ×#òð, active participle ä ×#òð, future ä × ò à
This conjugational pattern is created for those first guttural third weak
niph#al forms in which the prefix nun is vocalized with patah, . e.g. impera-
tive ä × ò ä–m.sg. past ä ×#òð (source verb not given). Apart from the sam-
ple verb ä × ò ä, two imperatives are listed under this pattern. These are
äV ç ä inferred from íéX$çp ä (Isa. :) and ä ö ç ä from õ ç úå (Dan. :).
The attribution of these first het . imperatives to the symbol _U a rather
than ä á à is noteworthy and must be due to the Babylonian substitution
of a segol by a patah. in the pronunciation of the author.
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on features of the Babylonian
pronunciation attributable to the author see ...
42 ïæå äì ñéì [FEA I , fol. r]. It is, indeed, the only final aleph niph#al in the Bible
(see Lambert (:–)).
chapter five
.. Symbols Based on the
Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
Symbols in this chapter are established only for verbs which cannot
be subsumed under any symbol based on the initial vowels of the im-
perative and the past. If a verb’s imperative and past forms differ
in two vowels, e.g. imperative _V a–m.sg. past _U a, it is always
the first vowel that is used to establish the symbol. This rule is nec-
essary to disambiguate the procedure of attributing verbs to sym-
bols.
... Symbol á ñ î
The symbol á ñ î includes verbs with a s. ere in the final syllable of the
imperative and a patah. in the final syllable of the past. It is divided into
nineteen conjugational patterns, namely è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä,
ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, ã äé"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV z"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä,
ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern è ì n!ä
imperative è ì n!ä, past è ì"îð, active participle è ì"îð, future è ì n!à
This conjugational pattern includes strong and second guttural verbs in
niph#al, e.g. ø ö a!ä from ø ö aé (Job :), â ò l!ä from â ò"ìð (Isa. :).
On patterning gutturals see ...; on the Babylonian vocalization of
the future prefix aleph with a hireq . see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òð k!ä
imperative òð k!ä, past òð"ëð, active participle òð"ëð, future òð k!à
Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern òð k!ä are inferred
from pausal future forms of third guttural niph#al’s, e.g. ç ú t!ä from ç ú té
(Job :).
On guttural verbs see ..., ..; on patterning pausal forms see
..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a
hireq
. see ...
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern ø ä h!ä
imperative ø ä h!ä, past ø ä hð or ø ä h!ä, active participle ø ä h!î (in the case
that the past is ø ä h!ä), future ø ä h!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
second guttural hitpa#el verbs with virtual gemination in which the prefix
taw is assimilated into the first radical, i.e. í çp!ä from the pausal é!ú"î çp!äå
(Ezek. :). For each past form two variants are given, one beginning in
a heh, the other in a nun, i.e. m.sg. past ø ä h!ä or ø ä hð, f.sg. past äT#ä h!ä
or äT#ä hð, m.pl. past eø#ä h!ä or eø#ä hð.
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on patterning pausal forms
see ..; on the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation
of the prefix taw as infi#āl see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the
future prefix aleph with a hireq. see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ø t k!ä
imperative ø t k!ä, past ø t kð, active participle not given, future ø t k!à
Attributed to the conjugational pattern ø t k!ä are strong and third aleph
hitpa#el verbs with the prefix taw assimilated into the first radical, e.g.
ø qe!ä from eø"qeðå (Ezek. :) and à ap!ä from eà"ap!ä (Jer. :). Contrary
to ø ä h!ä, only the nun past form ø t kð is given for ø t k!ä. That ø t k!ä
does not have a second past form in a heh is supported by the fact that
the author listed the pattern ø t k!ä among conjugational patterns in the
group ïð"ä43 while excluding ø ä h!ä from this classification because it can
have two past forms. In the light of the above, it is noteworthy that the
imperative à ap!ä is attributed to the pattern ø t k!ä. Indeed, it is inferred
from a heh past form eà"ap!ä (Jer. :) not allowed in ø t k!ä. Additionally,
its inclusion in ø t k!ä and in the symbol á ñ î in general implies that its
m.sg. past form has to be vocalized with a patah. on the bet whereas the
expected vowel in a third aleph verb is a qamas. .
On the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of
the prefix taw as infi#āl see ..; on final aleph verbs see ..; on
the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq . see
...
43 The mnemonic ïð"ä describes prefixes of niph#al verbs where the heh stands for the
imperative, the first nun for the past and the second nun for the participle (see ..).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ïðÇk!ä
imperative ïðÇk!ä, past and active participle uncertain, future ïðÇk!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
middle weak and geminated verbs in hitpo#el with full assimilation of
the prefix taw into the first radical, e.g. ïðÇk!ä from the pausal éððÇk!z (Isa.
:), í îÇg!ä from í îÇg!z (Eccl. :). The author maintained that only
the imperative and the forms of the future of ïðÇk!ä can be given with any
certainty. He reports to have initially quoted al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ that the past
is ïðÇk!ä and the active participle is ïðÇk!î.44 Later he decided that it was
more probable that the past begins in a nun as is usual in intransitive
conjugations of the type of infi#āl.
On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..;
on patterning pausal forms see ..; on the author’s analysis of hitpa#el
forms with full assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#āl see ..; on
the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq . see
...
.... Conjugational Pattern ïðÇk
imperative ïðÇk, past ïðÇk, active participle ïðÇë"î, passive participle ïðÇë"î,
future ïðÇë"à
Two types of verbs are attributed to this conjugational pattern: () verbs
with equivalent second and third radicals; () verbs with different second
and third radicals.
. Imperatives with equivalent second and third radicals are inferred
from po#el forms of middle weak and geminated verbs, e.g. ú úÇî from
ú úÇî"î (Sam. :) and á áÇñ from éð á"áÇñ"z (Ps. :) respective-
ly.
. Imperatives with different second and third radicals are inferred from:
a. strong po#el verbs such as è ô&Ö from é!è"ô&Ö"î!ì (Job :);
b. second guttural pu#al forms, e.g. _ òI from eë#òI (Ps. :);
c. pa#al forms such as ã á&à from the construct state of the active par-
ticiple m.sg. ã á&à (Deut. :), í òæ from the lengthened imper-
ative ä î#òæ (Num. :) and ñVS from the active participle m.sg.
ñVS (Isa. :);
44 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
d. imperative _ ìÇä is inferred from the hiph#il imperative _ ìÇäå
(Num. :);
e. imperative ø ò&ò is inferred from the idiosyncratic form eø ò&òé (Isa.
:) of the root #.w.r.45
The attribution of pa#al participles (see c) to the pattern ïðÇk deserves a
comment. The author warned against mixing up imperatives belonging
to the conjugational pattern ïðÇk with participles belonging to the pattern
ø&î"Ö (i.e. pa#al participles):
® ®
ø&î"Ö óéøöú ïî ïéìòàôìàá ñàðìà éìò ñáúìé àîî øéúëå áéøâ åä óéøöúìà àãäå
® ® ® ®
ãçàå éèôùîì ïî ãåëàî øîà åä éãìà è ôÇÖ äâéöå ø&î"Ö ìòàô åä éãìà ø îÇÖ äâéö ïàì
® ® ®
êìåäå äìå÷ åäå _ ìÇä øîà äìúîå ®íãàä êìåä éë ÷ë _ ìÇä _ì"ä ïî ìòàôìà êìãëå
®äîìòàô äøäî
This conjugation is unusual and people often confound it with active
participles of the conjugation ø&î"Ö. The reason for it is that ø îÇÖ which is
the active participle of ø&î"Ö and è ôÇÖ which is the imperative inferred from
é!è"ô&Ö"î!ì (Job :) have the same morphological form. Likewise, the active
participle of _À"ä is _ ìÇä, as in í@ à ä _ ìÇä é!k (Eccl. :) and similar to it is
the imperative _ ìÇä in äT ä"î _ ìÇäå (Num. :). Take note of that!
[FEA I , fol. r]
Hence, pa#al participles ã á&à and ñVS attributed to ïðÇk must have been
perceived by the author as having a different grammatical function.
Given the paradigm of ïðÇk, ã á&à could have been construed as a past form
and ñVS as an imperative.
The passive participle of ïðÇk is said to be identical in form with that
of the pattern _V a. The principle of establishing to which pattern a
particular occurring participle should be assigned is not explained.
On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..;
on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see
..; on imperatives inferred from passive forms see ..; on the vocal-
ization of the m.sg. past form of po#el verbs with a patah. see ..; on
the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a
simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
45 Gesenius (§cc).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ç çÇ×
imperative ç çÇ×, past ç çÇ×, active participle ç çÇ×"î, passive participle not
given, future ç çÇ×"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are a denominative
middle weak imperative ç çÇ× (source verse not given) and the imperative
òVæ inferred from a pausal second resh third guttural pu#al past eòTæ (Isa.
:).
On patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see
..; on imperatives inferred from passive forms see ..; on patterning
pausal forms see ..; on guttural verbs see ..., ..; on the vocal-
ization of the m.sg. past form of po#el verbs with a patah. see ..; on
the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a
simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ã äé"ú!ä
imperative ã äé"ú!ä, past ã äé"ú!ä, active participle ã äé"ú!î, future ã äé"ú à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
second guttural verbs in hitpa#el exhibiting virtual gemination, e.g. ã ç à"ú!ä
from éD#ç à"ú!ä (Ezek. :).
On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the vocalization of the
m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern _ l ä"ú!ä
imperative _ l ä"ú!ä, past _ l ä"ú!ä, active participle _ l ä"ú!î, future _ l ä"ú à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
forms of strong verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. õ n à"ú!ä from ú ö n à"ú!î (Ruth
:).
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ç t z"ñ!ä
imperative ç t z"ñ!ä, past ç t z"ñ!ä, active participle ç t z"ñ!î, future ç t z"ñ à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
sibilant third guttural verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. òb z"Ö!ä from òb z"Ö!ä"ì (Sam.
:).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw
see ...; on third guttural verbs see ..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ì a z"ñ!ä
imperative ì a z"ñ!ä, past ì a z"ñ!ä, active participle ì a z"ñ!î, future ì a z"ñ à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
strong first sibilant verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. ø k z"Ö!ä from ïéX k z"Ö!z (Sam.
:).
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw
see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern _V a"ú!ä
imperative _V a"ú!ä, past _U a"ú!ä, active participle _V a"ú!î, future _V a"ú à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
second resh and second aleph verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. ãVb"ú!ä from ãVb"ú!ä"ì
(Job :).
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on second guttural verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern òV z"×!ä
imperative òV z"×!ä, past òU z"×!ä, active participle òV z"×!î, future òV z"× à
The first sibilant second resh third guttural imperative òV z"×!ä is the
only verb attributed to this conjugational pattern. The author expressed
legitimate doubts that more verbs of this type can be found in the Bible.46
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the meta-
thesis of taw see ...; on second and third guttural verbs see ...,
...
46 According to Lambert (:–), òø× is the only root of this type.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern øV z"×!ä
imperative øV z"×!ä, past øU z"×!ä, active participle øV z"×!î, future øV z"× à
Imperatives included in this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
sibilant second resh verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. âV z"×!ä from eâY z"×é (Lament.
:).
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw
see ...; on second guttural verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä
imperative Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, past Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, active participle Ö ÖÇ÷ú!î, future Ö ÖÇ÷"ú à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
hitpo#el forms of middle weak and geminated verbs, e.g. ïðÇa"ú!ä from eðð&a"ú!ä
(Jer. :) and ïðÇø"ú!ä from ïðÇø"ú!î (Ps. :) respectively.
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah.
in the final syllable see ..; on patterning together middle weak and
geminated verbs see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ò òÇø"ú!ä
imperative ò òÇø"ú!ä, past ò òÇø"ú!ä, active participle ò òÇø"ú!î, future ò òÇø"ú à
The pattern ò òÇø"ú!ä was created to account for third guttural hitpo#el
forms. The only imperative attributed to this pattern in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
is the sample verb ò òÇø"ú!ä (source verse not given). The author expressed
doubts that more verbs of this kind can be found in the Bible.
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on third guttural verbs see ..., ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ì ìÇz"Ö!ä
imperative ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, past ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, active participle ì ìÇz"Ö!î, future ì ìÇz"Ö à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
sibilant hitpo#el forms, e.g. ì ìÇz"ñ!ä from ì ìÇz"ñ!î (Ex. :).
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah. in
the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw
see ....
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern ø òY ò"ú!ä
imperative ø òY ò"ú!ä, past ø òY ò"ú!ä, active participle ø òY ò"ú!î, future
ø òY ò"ú à
The pattern ø òY ò"ú!ä accounts for hitpalpel verbs with a non-guttural
final consonant. ø òY ò"ú!ä (source verse not given) is the only verb in this
category. The author expressed doubts that more verbs of this pattern are
attested in the Bible.
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpalpel verbs with a patah.
in the final syllable see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
imperative d ì"ä ì"ú!ä, past d ì"ä ì"ú!ä, active participle d ì"ä ì"ú!î, future
d ì"ä ì"ú à
The pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä includes final guttural hitpalpel verbs, e.g. d î"ä î"ú!ä
from eä"î"ä î"úiå (Judg. :).47
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpalpel verbs with a patah.
in the final syllable see ..; on third guttural verbs see ...,
...
... Symbol ä@ ò
The symbol ä@ ò includes verbs with a s. ere in the final syllable of their
imperatives and a patah. in the final syllable of their past forms. It contains
eleven conjugational patterns for final weak verbs, namely äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä,
äð a!ä, ä kf!ä, äð"ô ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ, ä l k, ä ë"Ö î, äV(à z, and ä èeô"Ö.
.... Conjugational Pattern äp ò"ú!ä
imperative äp ò"ú!ä, past äp ò"ú!ä, active participle äp ò"ú!î, future äp ò"ú à
This conjugational pattern accounts for third weak hitpa#el verbs, e.g.
äp à"ú!ä from äp à"ú!î (Kings :).
On the interchange of segol and s. ere in active participles of final heh
verbs see ....
47 MT: eä"î"ä î"ú!äå.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ä àT"ú!ä
imperative ä àT"ú!ä, past ä àT"ú!ä, active participle ä àT"ú!î, future ä àT"ú à
This conjugational pattern includes second aleph or resh third weak
hitpa#el verbs with compensatory lengthening of the vowel of the first
radical, e.g. äVb"ú!ä from äWb"úéå (Dan. :).48
On the interchange of segol and s. ere in active participles of final heh
verbs see ...; on second guttural verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern äð a!ä
imperative äð a!ä, past äð"áð, active participle äð"áð, future äð a!à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
third weak niph#al verbs, e.g. ä ìb!ä from eìbiå (Sam. :).
On the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq
.
see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern ä kf!ä
imperative ä kf!ä, past can be in a nun or in a heh, active participle not
given, future ä kf à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from
third weak hitpa#el verbs with full assimilation of the prefix taw into the
first radical, e.g. ä kf!ä from ekf!ä (Isa. :). The author suggested that
similar to ø ä h!ä, ä kf!ä can have two alternative past forms, one in a nun
and the other in a heh, but did not explicitly cite the past.
On the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of the
prefix taw as infi#āl see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern äð"ô ä
imperative äð"ô ä, past äð"ô ä, active participle äð"ô î, passive participle äð"ô%î
or äð"ô î, future äð"ô à
Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern äð"ô ä are inferred
from third weak hoph#al verbs, e.g. ä àY ä from ä àY î (Ex. :). The m.pl.
imperative eð"ô ä in Jer. : is one of the two imperatives of passive conju-
48 Cited according to qere, MT åWb"úéå.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
gations attested in the Bible.49 The rest of the imperatives in this pattern
(ä àY ä, ä c"ô ä, ä ìâ ä) are hypothetical and semantically questionable.
Two forms of the passive participle are proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd: ()
äð"ô%î same as the passive participle of äð"ô ä and () äð"ô î by analogy with
ä àY î (Ex. :) same as the active participle of äð"ô ä. It seems that the
latter form was preferred by our author who cited feminine and plural
passive participle forms with qamas. . The reason this form was chosen
seems to be that it ensures the stability of the short qamas. in the entire
paradigm.
On passive imperatives see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern äVÇä
imperative äVÇä, past äTÇä, active participle äWÇî, passive participle not
given, future äWÇà
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from first
yod third weak verb forms, e.g. äBÇä from eãÇé (Ps. :, passim). Despite
the transitivity of the pattern, the passive participle is not included in the
set of given forms. In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the passive participle äWeî is cited.50
.... Conjugational Pattern äVÇæ
imperative äVÇæ, past äTÇæ, active participle äWÇæ"î, passive participle äWeæ"î,
future äWÇæ"à
This conjugational pattern includes:
. imperative äVÇæ inferred from a second resh pu#al future äWæé (Job
:);
. imperative äVb inferred from the geminated pa#al future eäVâé (Hab.
:) with virtual gemination;
. imperative ä ñ&Ö inferred from the third weak po#el past form é!ú ×ÇÖ (Isa.
:).
The author establishes the connection between the patterns äVÇæ and äVæ
by saying that the active participle äWÇæ"î of the pattern äVÇæ is the same as
the passive participle of the pattern äVæ. It is not clear on what grounds
attested participle forms of this type were assigned to one conjugational
pattern rather than the other.
49 Joüon-Muraoka (§§a, ).
50 Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five
On passive imperatives see ..; on patterning together verbs of
different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian
vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a
hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ä q k
imperative ä q k, past ä q k, active participle ä q ë"î, future ä q ë"à
Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ä q k are inferred from:
. third weak pu#al forms, e.g. ä q k from eq k (Ps. :);
. geminated pa#al forms with short qamas. , e.g. äb ç from éb ç (Nahum
:).
In the second category the form of the imperative with a final heh ensures
the preservation of the short qamas. throughout the paradigm.
On passive imperatives see ..; on hypothetical final heh imperatives
see ..; on participle forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives see .;
on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the sg. future prefix with
a simple shewa instead of a hataph
. patah. see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ë"Ö î
imperative ä ë"Ö î, past ä ë"Ö î, active participle ä ë"Ö î"î, passive participle
not mentioned, future ä ë"Ö î"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from
m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms of pa#al verbs with a short qamas. instead
of a hireq
. under the first radical, i.e. ä ë"Ö î from eë"Ö î (Ezek. :), as
well as from idiosyncratic pa#al imperfects with pronominal suffixes,
i.e. ä ì"ë à from eä ì"ë à"z (Job :) and äV"á ç from ^Y"á çé ä (Ps.
:). The short qamas. under the first radical of attested forms is pre-
served in the proposed hypothetical forms by means of adding a final
heh.
On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ..; on participle forms of
hypothetical final heh imperatives see .; on the non-standard Tiberian
vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a
hataph
. patah. and on the interchange of s. ere and segol in participle forms
of final heh verbs see ....
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
.... Conjugational Pattern äV(à z
imperative äV(à z, past äT(à z, active participle äV(à ú"î, passive participle
not mentioned, future äW(à ú"à
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from two
idiosyncratic forms with short qamas. under the first radical and hataph.
qamas. under the second radical, i.e. äV(à z from eäV(à úé (Isa. :) and
ä î(ñJ from é!î(ñJ (Sam. :). The heh at the end of the forms serves
to preserve the syllable structure of the attested forms and to ensure the
stability of the short qamas. and hataph
. qamas. in all forms.
On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ..; on participle forms of
hypothetical final heh imperatives see .; on the non-standard Tiberian
vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a
hataph
. patah. and on the interchange of s. ere and segol in participle forms
of final heh verbs see ....
.... Conjugational Pattern ä èeô"Ö
imperative ä èeô"Ö, past ä èeô"Ö, the rest of the forms not given
Imperatives ä èeô"Ö and äVeî"Ö attributed to this conjugational pattern are
inferred from idiosyncratic pausal forms eèet"Öé (Ex. :) and íVeî"Ö!z
(Prov. :) with ultimate stress. The shuruq in the attested forms is
preserved in the hypothetical forms. According to G. Khan’s analysis
the final heh was posited in the hypothetical imperatives to account for
the ultimate stress of eèet"Öé, íVeî"Ö!z as opposed to the regular penultimate
stress in the third person plural and second person singular imperfect of
middle weak verbs.51
On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ...
... Symbol éD ò
The symbol éD ò describes the conjugation of verbs with a s. ere in the
final syllable of the imperative and a hireq
. in the final syllable of the past
and consists of three conjugational patterns for first yod verbs in hiph#il,
namely áé èé ä, á ÖÇä and òBÇä.
51 Khan (b:).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern áé èé ä
imperative áé èé ä, past áé!èé ä, active participle áé!èé î, passive participle not
given, future áé!èé à
Verbs listed under this category are imperatives inferred from hiph#il
forms of originally first yod verbs which occur with a yod between
the second and the third radical, e.g. ÷éðé ä from ÷éðé úå (Ex. :). The
imperative _é ìé ä is inferred from the idiosyncratic form é!ëé!ìé ä (Ex. :).
Contrary to the modern analysis of such roots as first yod, the author did
not regard the yod as a radical and characterized the pattern as ‘consisting
of two root letters preceded by a heh.’52
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on the structure of verbal
roots see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern á ÖÇä
imperative á ÖÇä, past áé!ÖÇä, active participle áé!ÖÇî, passive participle not
given, future áé!ÖÇà
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
yod (originally first waw) verbs in hiph#il which occur with a yod, e.g.
ãVÇä from eãéXÇé (Kings :). Despite the transitivity of the pattern, the
passive participle is not included in the set of mentioned forms. In al-
Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the passive participle á Öeî same as the passive participle of
the pattern á Ö ä is proposed.53
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ...
.... Conjugational Pattern òBÇä
imperative òBÇä, past òéDÇä, active participle òéDÇî, future òéDÇà
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first
yod (originally first waw) third guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ç ëÇä from
çé!ëÇz ç ëÇä (Lev. :).
On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see
..., ...
52 à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. v].
53 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kitāb al-#uqūd
... Symbol òK a
The newly created symbol òK a includes verbs with a segol in the final
syllable of the imperative and a patah. in the final syllable of the past and
contains one conjugational pattern ø î g!ä.
.... Conjugational Pattern ø î g!ä
imperative ø î g!ä, past ø î"Öð, active participle ø î"Öð, future ø î g!à
The imperative ø î g!ä with retraction of the tone from the ultima to the
penultima and the subsequent shortening of s. ere to segol is attested in the
Bible (Job :). Other imperatives attributed to this conjugational pat-
tern are inferred from niph#al imperfect forms exhibiting this retraction
of tone, e.g. ã î v!ä from ã î viå (Num. :).
In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs niph#al imperfects with retraction
of tone are listed but separate imperatives are not proposed for them.54
On the contrary, al-Fāsı̄ considered imperfects with and without the
retraction of tone to be derived from two different imperative bases and
posited for the occurring form í çpiå a hypothetical imperative í çp!ä.55
... Symbol éX t
The symbol éX t includes verbs with a segol in the final syllable of the
imperative and a hireq
. in the final syllable of the past. It is not listed in
the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ
in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and
on other related matters.’ Instead, it is introduced in the section on the
mnemonic í ä ä:
®
ãéøåä øáòìà ïåëéå íéî úåøäðë ãøåéå ïî ãWÇä íää éô éðàúìà áàáìà éô ãàæé ã÷å
® ® ®
äøîà øëà éX ô äîàìò äì èáöéå ®úëìì ì àéå ãåã ãåò ó ñåéå äìúîå ®ãéøåî ìòàôìàå
® ® ® ®
®äè÷ðá äì éãìà øáòìà øëàå è÷ð äúìúá
In the second chapter (i.e. chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their
first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived
from them] and on other related matters’) to í ä ä can be added ãWÇä from
íé î úÇø äp k ãWÇiå (Ps. :) with the past ãéXÇä and the active participle
ãéXÇî. Similar to it is ãå c ãÇò ó ñÇiå (Sam. :) and ú ë ì ì ì àiå (Sam.
:). One can establish for it the symbol éX t: the end of its imperative
is [vocalized] with a segol and the end of its past form with a hireq.
.
[FEA I , fol. v]
54 See Khan (b:, ).
55 See Skoss (–:II, ).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ãWÇä
imperative ãWÇä, past ãéXÇä, active participle ãéXÇî, future not given,
presumably ãWÇà
It follows from the quotation above that the symbol éX t consisting of a
single conjugational pattern ãWÇä was introduced to account for impera-
tives inferred from hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of first yod (orig-
inally first waw) verbs with the retraction of tone from the ultima to the
penultima and the subsequent shortening of the vowel of the ultima from
s. ere to segol, e.g. ãWÇä from ãWÇiå (Ps. :).
chapter six
MORPHOLOGICAL THEORIES IN KITĀB AL-#UQŪD
This chapter explores approaches to verbal derivation as they are reflected
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and other Karaite works containing material on the
verbal morphology of Biblical Hebrew, such as the Diqduq, Kitāb Jāmi#
al-Alfāz,
. the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, al-Kitāb al-Muštamil, al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄, Me"or #Ayin, and a number of grammatical Genizah fragments of
Karaite origin.
.. Status of Letters
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the letters of the alphabet are classified in two different
ways. With regard to their function in the language in general, letters are
divided into radicals and non-radicals.1 With regard to their status within
a given word, letters are separated into root, auxiliary, built-in and affixed
letters.2
... Radicals vs. Non-radicals
It is well known that Karaite grammarians considered only those letters
that occur in all forms of a lexical class (luġa)3 to belong to its root and
accepted roots consisting of one to four radicals.4 This concept is also
found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd:
® ®
øéâ íà äéåàñúî äøéàâúîìà úàâììà äãä éô äéøäåâìà óåøçìà ìäå ìà÷ ïàô
éìò øåãé àî àäéô äì ìé÷ ®àäøéàâú óéëå ìà÷ ïàô ®äéåàñúî øéâ äì ìé÷ ºäéåàñúî
® ® ®
àäéôå ®äúìú éìò øåãé àî àäéôå ®ïéôøç éìò øåãé àî àäéôå ®øéâ àì éøäåâ ãçàå óøç
®
êìã ïî ãéæà àìå äòáøà øåãé àî
1 FEA I , fol. v–r.
2 FEA I , fol. r–r.
3 A lexical class is ‘an abstract entity that includes linguistic forms sharing a common
kernel of meaning and common letters’ (Khan (a:)).
4 See Khan (a:–, –); Maman (a:); Olszowy-Schlanger (:
–) and the literature cited there.
chapter six
If somebody asks if the root letters in these different lexical classes are
similar or not, it should be said to him that they are not similar. If he asks
how they are different, it should be said to him that some lexical classes
have as their core only one root letter,5 others have two, others have three,
others still have four, but it cannot be more than that.
[FEA I , fol. v]
Headings of most conjugational patterns in Kitāb al-#Uqūd contain infor-
mation on the number of root letters in imperative bases of each pattern.
Patterns with one root letter include ä k ä and äVÇä. Patterns with two root
letters are, for instance, ìé v ä, ä lb, íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ÖLe!ä,6 áé èé ä. These examples
demonstrate that the initial nun, waw and yod; the middle waw and yod;
the third radical of geminated verbs and the final heh were not regarded
by the author as root letters. Conjugational patterns with four radicals
such as ì aY k include pilpel verbs alongside quadriliterals.7 Hence, pilpel’s
were considered by the author to have four root letters. A statement to
this effect is found in the chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other
related matters:’
® ®
ìåæé àì óåøç äòáøàìà äãä ïî óøç ìë ãà ì áY ë åçðô äòáøà ïî øåãé àî àîàå
® ® ®
ì ë"ì ë ñ ô"ñ ç õ ô"ö ô êìãëå õåá ìéòîá ì áY%ë"î ãåãå ïî ãåëàî åäå äâììà ãñôðúå àìà
æ ÖY ô
An example of a lexical class with four root letters is ì aY k, since none of
the four letters can be lacking without the word becoming corrupt. It is
taken from õea ìé!ò"î!a ì aY%ë"î ãå@å (Chron. :). Similar to it are õ t"ö t,
ñ t"ñ ç, ì k"ì k, and æ ÖY t. [FEA I , fol. r]
Not all Karaite grammarians shared this opinion as some held that re-
peated letters do not belong to the root:
® ®
éãöìàå àôìà óãàøúì ì áY ë ìúî úñéì õ ô"ö ô ïà éøé ïé÷åã÷ãìà õòá ïà íìòàå
®
àäôåøç äìàúîàå õ ô"ö ô ïà ìå÷é ïî íäðîå ®éìöà øéâ óãøúîìà óøçìà ïà ìå÷éô
® ® ® ® ®
ïéîéä íàå ïî ãåëàîìà ì à"î"× ä éøâî àäåøâéå óéøöúìà øéàñ éô àäúåáúì äééìöà
®
®äøéàâúî àäéô óåøç äòáøàìà éãìà äìéàîùàå
Take note that one grammarian thinks that õ t"ö t is different from ì aY k
because the letters peh and s. ade are repeated and says that repeated letters
do not belong to the root. Others say that all letters of õ t"ö t and similar
5 Literally: ‘turn on only one root letter.’
6 In first waw niph#al verbs the waw is said to replace a root letter (óøçìà ïò àáéàð
éìöàìà [FEA I , fol. v]).
7 The same mode of patterning is found in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ (see Khan et al. (:,
I..)).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
verbs belong to the root because they are present in the rest of the conjuga-
tion. They treat it in the same way as ì à"î"× ä derived from ä ìé!à"î"× àå ïé!îi ä í!àå
(Gen. :) which has four different radicals. [FEA I , fol. v]
Indeed, al-Fāsı̄ differentiated between quadriliterals (arba# hurūf
. as. liyya)
such as Ö t"è\ (Job :) and verbs with repeated consonants (arba#
mukarrara) such as ì k"ì ëéå (Gen. :).8
To facilitate the decision of whether a letter does or does not belong
to a root, all letters of the alphabet are divided in Kitāb al-#Uqūd into
the so-called ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ letters. Feminine letters (al-hurūf.
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®®®
al-neqebot), namely ø÷ õôò ñèç æãâ, arranged into a mnemonic ø t ñ è ç
¯
÷C ö òæb, are said to be always root letters. Masculine letters (al-hurūf al-
® ®®® ® ®®®® ® ®
.
zekarim), i.e. úùðî ìëé åä áà, arranged into a mnemonic äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö, can
be¯ either root or non-root letters.9
The division of letters into radicals and servile letters is a common
tool in grammatical works, Karaite as well as Rabbanite.10 Whereas the
division given in Kitāb al-#Uqūd is the most common, alternatives can be
found in the sources. Thus, Dunaš ben Labrat. classified dalet and t. et as
servile letters.11 The author of an anonymous Karaite work fragmentarily
preserved in JTS ENA .– counted shin among the root letters
saying that - Ö is equivalent to ø Ö#à and as such differs from other servile
letters.12 A similar opinion was mentioned and refuted by Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.13
The terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are rare and seem to occur only
in Karaite treatises.14 Two different anthropomorphic explanations of
the terms are offered by medieval grammarians. On the one hand, it is
suggested that masculine letters were called so for their ability to attach
themselves to feminine letters.15 This explanation refers to the situation
when masculine letters function as affixes added to root letters. On the
other hand, it is said that feminine letters are like women, who always stay
8 See Skoss (–:I, ).
9 On these mnemonics see ...
10 See Allony (:, , :); Bacher (b:); Derenbourg (:–
, , :); Dotan (:); Khan et al. (:, I. .–); Maman (a:–
); Zislin (:–).
11 Sáenz-Badillos (:*).
12 JTS ENA .r –v.
13 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
14 For other works on grammar using this terminology see Allony (:–).
15 Kitāb al-#Uqūd: íéøëæ àäåîñ àäàåñ éìò àäáåëø äìòìå [FEA I , fol. r]; see also
Manuel du Lecteur (Derenbourg (:)).
chapter six
at home, and masculine letters are like men, who are at times at home
and at times outside.16 This explanation reflects the fact that feminine
letters are always radicals and masculine letters can be either radicals or
non-radicals.
... Root, Auxiliary, Built-in and Affixed Letters
The division of letters into root, auxiliary, built-in and affixed letters takes
into account the contribution of each letter to the meaning of a lexeme
containing it. Root letters (hurūf
. as. liyya or hurūf
. jawhariyya) are defined
as those constituents of a word that carry its general meaning and hence
determine to which lexical class a word belongs:
®
åà ïéòìà ã&î#ò ïî ìàæ àãà ïàì äâììà êéú úãñôðà äâììà ïî ìàæ éúî éìöàìàô
® ® ®
:éìöà óøç ìë éô ãç àãäå óå÷åìà äâì ïî úâøë ìàãìà åà íàîìà
If a root letter is removed from a word, the word will become corrupt.
Indeed, if the #ayin, or the mem, or the dalet disappear from ã&î#ò, it will no
longer belong to the lexical class of ‘standing.’ This is the definition of all
root letters. [FEA I , fol. v]
Consider also this:
®
ìòôìà äâì íìòú ïéùìàå ïéòìà òåîâîá øàöô
One can recognize the lexical class of ‘doing’ by the presence of the letters
#ayin and shin together. [FEA I , fol. r]
Whereas radicals establish the basic semantic content of a word, non-
root letters contribute to its specific meaning (ma#nā). Kitāb al-#Uqūd dis-
cusses three categories of non-root letters. Affixed letters (hurūf
. rākiba)
are attached to words which already have an established specific mean-
ing.17 They serve to transform one existing linguistic form into a different
form of the same lexical class. Examples of an affixed letter are the pre-
fix mem in the active participle ø aA"î or the future prefix yod in ø aAé.
Indeed, if these prefixes are removed, a meaningful imperative form ø a c
will result.
Contrary to affixed letters, built-in letters (hurūf
. mabniyya) cannot be
removed without a word loosing any specific meaning and retaining only
16 #Adat Deborim, II Firk. Evr. C , fol. r:
¯
àìå ®ïäéìòá éúáì ãåñé ïäå úåáùåé úéáá ïúåéäì íà éë ®ïéà ïúøàôúù úåá÷ðì ïåéîã úåá÷ð úåàø÷ðå
õåçá íòôå úéáá íòô íäù íéøëæì ïåéîã íéøëæ íéàåø÷å ®®® õåçá êìäúäì ïäá ïëúé
17 äáåëø ïàë àäéìò áëø àã ® ® ®
àô àäéìò äáåëø ìá÷ úáàú éðòî àäì äèôì éìò áëøé áëàøìàå
ãéàæ éðòîì [FEA I , fol. r].
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
its basic semantic content.18 This is exemplified by the prefix mem in the
participle ìé!câ î or by the future prefix yod in ìé!câé. Here, if the mem or
the yod are removed, the remaining constituent ìéDb is not a meaningful
utterance.
Although the notions of built-in and affixed letters are known from
Harunian grammars,19 the concepts were applied differently and pre-
dominantly with respect to nouns by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. The term rākib
was used for a prefix with a syntactical function and the term mabnı̄ for
a prefix which is an integral part of a morphological pattern.20 Thus, Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn classified the contracted form of the preposition ï!î as the
affixed mem and all cases of the prefix mem required by nominal mor-
phological patterns as built-in.21 On one occasion in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ he
applied the terminology of affixed and built-in letters to verbs charac-
terizing the future prefix yod as affixed in ø&î"Öé, ä ×#òé, ø aAé. Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn stated that this prefix (and presumably other future prefixes as
well) can never be built-in in verbs.22 On the contrary, the author of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd applied the dichotomy to verbal morphology and spoke of built-
in and affixed future prefixes:
áëàøå éðáî ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðú ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç ïà íìòàå
Take note that future prefixes can be divided into two groups, i.e. built-in
and affixed. [FEA I , fol. v]
The system of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is also found in Me"or #Ayin.23
A novel concept not found in the books of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and
presumably first introduced in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are auxiliary letters (hurūf
.
musta#mala).24 Auxiliary letters are similar to built-in letters in that their
removal destroys the specific meaning of a word but differ crucially in
that built-in letters occur only in some forms of a verb whereas auxiliary
letters are present in the entire paradigm.25 In modern terms auxiliary
letters are first radicals of first nun and first yod verbs explicitly present
18 ø÷úñî éðòî äè® ® ® ®
ôììà éô äìàåæ ãòá à÷áé àì ìàæ àãà äðàì äìàåæ æåâé àì éãìà åäô éðáîìàå
® v r
éðòî øéâ ïî äúáàú äâììà óåøç ìá ®®® [FEA I , fol. – ].
19See Khan et al. (:, I..).
20Maman (:–).
21 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
22 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
23 See Zislin (:).
24 The introduction of this concept was previously attributed to Me"or #Ayin (see
Maman (a:–, :); Zislin (:)).
® ® ® ®
25 éðòî øéâ ïî äúáàú äâììà óåøç úé÷á ìàæ àãàå äìë óéøöúìà éô úáúé éãìà åä ìîòúñîìàå
àäéô ø÷úñî [FEA I , fol. v].
chapter six
in a verb form. As was mentioned above, only letters stable in all forms
of a lexical class were counted as radicals by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
Consequently first nun and first yod verbs were considered to have only
two radicals, e.g. the quph and h. et in çK ì, the samekh and #ayin in ò ñð. The
forms ò ñ and ò ñð were not regarded as an imperative and a past form of
one verb but rather as forms of two different verbs belonging to the same
lexical class of ‘going away.’ According to Kitāb al-#Uqūd, the nun in ò ñð
is an auxiliary letter and is present in all forms of the verb, including the
imperative ò ñð.26 On the other hand, the imperative ò ñ is counted among
‘imperatives which do not have past forms.’27
Even though the categories of letters are defined semantically by the
author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd, the information on the status of a particular let-
ter was used for grammatical purposes, namely for forming morpholog-
ical patterns and for establishing rules of derivational relations between
verb forms.28 According to Kitāb al-#Uqūd nine conditions must be sat-
isfied for two words to have the same morphological pattern.29 Two of
them involve root letters:
® ®
ïÇæ ç ìúî äééìöàìà óåøçìà ããò àäðî èåøù ïàæåàìà éô àòàøé éãìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å
® ® ®
:êìã ìàúîàå ïééìöà ïåøç éô ùéøìàå úéçìàå ïééìöà ïåæç éô éàæìàå úéçìà ãà ïÇø ç
It had been said before that some conditions must be observed regarding
grammatical patterns. One of them is the number of root letters. Examples
are ïÇæ ç and ïÇø ç because the het
. and zayin are the two root letters in ïÇæ ç
and the het. and resh are the two root letters in ïÇø ç, and similar cases.
[FEA I , fol. v]
® ® ®
éãìà ïÇì î ñÇð î ìúî àãçàå àáéúøú ïéúèôììà éô äéìöàìà óåøçìà áéúøú àòàøéå
® ®
éìöà äèôììà ñàø éô ùéøìà ãà ïÇöTá àðæåé àìô äééìöà øéâ àîäñåø éô ïéîàîìà
® ®
:êìã ìàúîàå
It should be observed that the root letters in both words are equally
arranged. For example, ñÇð î and ïÇì î, the mem in the beginning of which
is not a root letter, should not be considered to have the same pattern as
ïÇöT where the resh at the beginning is a root letter, and similar cases.
[FEA I , fol. v]
26 Hypothetical first nun imperatives of this type were regularly proposed by early
Karaite grammarians (see Khan (a:)). To the best of my knowledge hypothetical
future forms of the type of ò ñðé are not registered in any sources including Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
27 See ...
28 This points out that in Kitāb al-#Uqūd the verbal root plays a more important role
in grammatical description then was evident from other sources, such as those analyzed
by J. Olszowy-Schlanger (:).
29 See ...
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
As to the rules of derivational relations, i.e. implicational statements
establishing links between different verb forms,30 they refer not only to
radicals but to all four categories of letters. Consider these:
®
äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë
®
ìçðé àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå
If an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the past form
will always begin with that same letter. This is the way of the language and
a rule which can never be broken. [FEA I , fol. r]
® ® ®
®éðáî øëàìàå áëàø ãçàåìà ïéäâå éìò øîàìà éìò ìëãé ã÷ ìòàôìà íàî ïà íìòàå
® ® ® ® ® ® ®
àãà éðáî ïàë àãàå ®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô
® ® ® ® ®
äìîâå äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå ®®® à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç
ìöôúú àì
Take note that the mem of the active participle can be added to an impera-
tive in two fashions, namely as an affixed or a built-in [prefix]. If it is affixed,
the imperative will not require any additions after you remove it. If it is
built-in, the imperative will need an added heh after the mem is removed
… This is a rule which can never be broken in the language and a general
statement without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
In the first rule the form of the past is inferred from the fact that the
imperative begins in a radical or an auxiliary letter. In the second, the
form of the imperative is related to the built-in or affixed status of its
active participle prefix mem. These examples demonstrate that the status
of letters within a word was, indeed, an important tool of morphological
analysis for the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
Parallel to root and auxiliary consonants the author speaks of root
and auxiliary vowels.31 In his definition, root vowels (mulūk as. liyya) are
vowels which occur in some nouns in all their forms, such as the hireq .
in Öé!à or the shuruq in ñeñ. Auxiliary vowels (mulūk musta#mala), on
the other hand, are a feature of verbal morphology. These are vowels
which are stable in all verb forms in some conjugational patterns, for
instance, the holam
. in the forms of ïÇk!ä or the patah. in the forms of ÷ n!ä.
Auxiliary vowels are called thus by analogy with auxiliary letters which
do not belong to the root but are nevertheless present in all forms of a
verb containing them. If an auxiliary vowel is removed and substituted by
another vowel, the verb can still sometimes be understood but acquires
a different meaning, as in ïÇk!ä vs. ï ë ä.
30 See .
31 FEA I , fol. v–r.
chapter six
The concept of root and auxiliary vowels is reminiscent of Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn’s idea that some vowels ‘have the status of a radical’ (ka-l-as. lı̄).32
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn extended this notion to verbs and nouns alike and
the term ‘auxiliary vowel’ does not appear in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. Examples
of radical-like vowels in nouns are the first qamas. in forms of ÖT ç and
the s. ere in forms of õ ô ç or ã ò both of which do not undergo reduction
in the process of inflection. In verbs radical-like vowels are represented
by the holam
. in forms of ïðÇk, ãVÇä or ïÇk!ä and the qubbus. in pu#al and
hoph#al verbs.
.. Principles of Verbal Derivation
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the derivational base and the citation form of a verb is
its m.sg. imperative. All verbal paradigms begin with a m.sg. imperative
and it is also the form in which structurally identical verbs are listed
in each conjugational pattern. This primacy of the imperative is in full
accord with the morphological teachings of the Karaites.33
G. Khan described two different methodological approaches to estab-
lishing imperative bases of attested verbal forms.34 Some grammarians
proposed imperative bases of a regular pattern and explained irregular-
ities in derivative forms by phonetic processes, such as the addition, eli-
sion, substitution and quiescence of letters.35 Others held the view that an
imperative base must necessarily reflect all key structural elements of its
occurring derivative even at the cost of being hypothetical and anoma-
lous. The author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd clearly followed the latter approach.
All imperatives proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd exhibit close structural affin-
ity to their derivative forms and a one-to-one correspondence between
32 See Khan et al. (:–, II..–).
33 See Khan (:–, a:, b:); Maman (a:–) and the
literature there. As is well known the idea of the primacy of the imperative was refuted by
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn who argued that the primary verb form was the infinitive. While
objecting to the tradition that the imperative is the base of the verbal inflection on
semantic grounds, Abū al-Faraj Hārūn continued proposing imperative bases for verbal
forms (Khan (:–)). In line with Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, our author maintained
that semantically the infinitive was the primary verb form and referred to infinitives as
‘bases of lexical classes’ (úàâììà ìåöà [FEA I , fol. v]) and ‘something from which
verbs are lexically derived’ (ìàòôàìà äðî ú÷úùà àî [FEA I , fol. v]). For the sake
of verbal conjugation, the imperative is the only base form considered in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
34 See Khan (a:).
35 On these phonetic processes see Khan (a:–).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
an imperative and its derivatives is expected. Hence, structural varia-
tion in attested forms is always explained through differences in their
imperatives. For instance, the morphological pattern of the jussive form
ì v z is explained by proposing a separate imperative ì v ä without yod as
opposed to ìé v ä with yod underlying the future indicative ìé!v z.36
It appears that the author preferred such hypothetical derivative bases
to ad hoc phonetic processes affecting only certain forms which were
proposed by some other grammarians. In his view, a phonetic process
is valid if it operates in all structurally identical forms. An example
demonstrating this opinion is found in the symbol épb. When dealing
with pi#el forms with reduced gemination of the second radical, such as
íeà"ì îéå (Sam. :), eÖO a (Ezra :, passim), eç"ì Ö (Ps. :, passim)
the author argued against the idea that the dagesh, although present in the
imperative base, was elided in the process of derivation. His objections
were based on the observation that pairs like eç"l!ù with dagesh and eç"ì!ù
with raphe were attested in the Bible:
® ® ® ® ® ® ®
åä éãìà ìîòúñîìà ãåâåîìàá äôàìë àððè ã÷å øöúëî ùâãìà ïà øáëð ïà æåâé àìå
®
àãäå äV#ç ú éìò ñà÷îìà ä ç"ì Ö ïî êùã÷î ùàá eç"ì!ùå ®ç l Ö ïî ùàá eç"l!ù øéòä úàå
®
®õìëàå íìñà éãðò
If we consider differences in existing forms, namely ù à á eç"l!Ö øé!ò ä ú àå
(Judg. :) derived from ç l Ö, and ^ Ö cO!î ù à á eç"ì!Ö (Ps. :) derived from
ä ç"ì Ö, which is analogous to äV#ç z, it becomes impossible to claim that the
dagesh is elided. In my opinion, this is correct and final.
[FEA I , fol. r]
The argument here is to the effect that if dagesh were elided in eç"ì!Ö the
process would affect all such forms and eç"l!Ö would not occur. Since this is
not the case, separate morphological bases should be proposed to reflect
the structure of attested derivatives.
Apart from retaining key structural elements of its occurring deriva-
tive forms, a proposed imperative has to comply with other attested or
easily inferable derivational bases. Such derivational bases are referred
to by the term ‘base of analogy’ (as. l yuqās #alayh). The existence of a base
of analogy legitimates a hypothetical imperative. Thus, when establish-
ing the imperative base of éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) the author rejected the option
ä î$çé but accepted ä î#çé on the grounds that the former does not have a
base of analogy whereas the latter is supported by an analogous impera-
tive äV#ç z:
36 On imperatives with and without yod see ...
chapter six
®
àìå øáò àìå øîà àì äéìò ñà÷é ìöà äì ñéì ïàì ä î$çé äøîà ïåëé ïà æåâé àìå
® ®
ìúî ä î#çé àäøîà ïåëé ïà àìà éðúîçé éô íàñ÷àìà äãä ãòá é÷á àîô ®®® ìá÷úñî
® ®
àäìúàî àî àäéìò ñà÷é ìöà úøàöô øîà óìë øéâá éä éúìà äV#ç ú
The imperative cannot be ä î$çé because there is no base of analogy either
for the imperative, or for the past, or for the future … Thus, there remains
only one possible imperative for éð"ú î$çé, namely ä î#çé. It is similar to äV#ç z,
which is indisputably an imperative and serves as a base of analogy for
similar forms … [FEA I , fol. v–r]
The author considered the following ways of establishing an imperative.
. An imperative can be handed down by oral tradition (yu" had. samā#an).
This is the case with bi-radical hiph#il imperatives of the˘ type of øé!ñ ä
attested in Ezek. :. The author maintained that the occurrence of
yod in imperatives of this type is rare and can only be justified by oral
tradition:
® ® ® ® ® ® ®
æåâéô àòàîñ ãëåé êìã ïàë ïàô àãàù àìà ãåéá ñðâìà àãä ïî øîàåà áéöú ïà ì÷å
®íìòà äììàå
You rarely find imperatives of this type to take yod apart in exceptional
cases. But if it is handed down by oral tradition, it is possible, and God
knows. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
In Arabic the term samā# can have two different meanings. In Islamic
education it means ‘audition’ and describes ‘a method of transmission in
which a pupil listens to (“audits”) a text recited by a teacher.’37 In grammar
and lexicology it means ‘what has been received by hearsay, what is
established by received usage.’38 In Kitāb al-#Uqūd yu" had. samā#an seems
to be used in the second sense. Consider the following ˘ two examples:
®ê ì"Ö!ä _ ì"Ö ä øáò ïåëé ïà úøëðà àîå _é!ì"Ö!ä ê ì"Ö ä øáò ïà íìòà ïéà ïîå ìà÷ ïàô
® ® ®
äâììà ìäà ïî àòàîñ ãëåé êìã ïà äì ìé÷
Somebody might ask: ‘How do I know that the past of _ ì"Ö ä is _é!ì"Ö!ä
denying that the past of _ ì"Ö ä is _ ì"Ö!ä?’ It should be told to him that this is
handed down by oral tradition from the people of the language.
[FEA I , fol. v]
® ®
ìàîòúñàìà ìéì÷ äðàì àòàîñ ãëåé àîî åä àìå
It is not handed down by oral tradition because it is rarely used.
[FEA I , fol. r]
37 Schoeler (:).
38 Lane (I:).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
Here the oral tradition from the people of the language, i.e. the group
of primary speakers responsible for the creation of Hebrew, is character-
ized as a source of simple facts of the linguistic reality of Hebrew (e.g.
the past of _ ì"Ö ä being _é!ì"Ö!ä) but not of rare forms. In this case it seems
probable that yu" had. samā#an refers to the common native like language
˘
knowledge, to hearsay linguistic evidence rather than to the authority of
a teacher.
. An imperative can be inferred from an active participle or a form
of the future. The idea behind this procedure is that futures and active
participles with the prefix mem originate directly in imperative forms:
®
íàîå ®äìòàô àîñé àîî øîàåàìà éìò àìà àãáà ìëãú àì ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç
®
íñà àîà ãö÷à øîàìà úãøà éúîô øîàìà éìò àìà àãáà ìëãé àì ìòàôìà
® ®
ìàá÷úñàìà óøç àîàå ìòàôìà íéî àîà óãçà ìàá÷úñàìà èôì àîàå ìòàôìà
® ®
®øîàìà ãëå
Future prefixes are always attached to imperatives of active verbs. Likewise,
the mem of the active participle is always attached to the imperative. So,
when you need [to establish] an imperative, look for an active participle
or a future form, elide either the mem of the active participle or the future
prefix and take the imperative. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
It should be noted that jussive and imperfect consecutive forms were con-
sidered a legitimate source of imperatives. For example, the imperative
ãWÇä with a final segol is inferred from the imperfect consecutive ãWÇiå
(Ps. :) and the imperative ãð from the jussive ãð z (Jer. :).39
. An imperative can be established by probing different possible forms
and choosing the most probable one by elimination. When establishing
an imperative for éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) the author considered five imperative
bases ä î#ç, í çé, í çé, ä î$çé and ä î#çé, eliminated the first four on various
grounds and concluded that ä î#çé is the only admissible base.40 In a
similar line of reasoning the author established that the imperative of ò qé
was ò ñ.41 He listed four possible imperative bases, namely () ò q!ä; ()
ò ñð; () ä ò"ñ; and () ò ñ, and compared future forms derived from them
with the attested ò qé (Isa. :), eò"ñé (Ex. :, passim), ò qiå (Gen. :,
passim). Since the forms of imperatives ()–() differ from those attested,
the author decided that ò ñ was the only possible imperative for ò qé.
39 See also on imperatives with and without yod (..).
40 FEA I , fol. v–r.
41 FEA I , fol. v–v.
chapter six
It has to be stressed that an imperative base is always inferred from a
particular occurring form not taking into account other instances of the
same verb.42 The imperative _Ça!ä is proposed as the base of the form ä ëÇáð
(Esth. :) whereas _ea!ä is posited for íé!ëeáð (Ex. :) (conjugational
patterns ïÇk!ä and _ea!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö). From the past form é!z"ì ç (Isa.
:) the author inferred the imperative ìeç (conjugational pattern áeÖ in
the symbol ì òeÖ) and from the m.pl. imperative eìé!ç (Ps. :) the m.sg.
imperative ìé!ç (conjugational pattern íé!× in the pattern äTé!Ö). Among
the sample imperatives one finds the pair òeð (in the symbol ì òeÖ) inferred
from the active participle òð (Gen. :, ) vs. òÇð (in the symbol ïðÇk),
presumably inferred from the infinitive form òÇð of the same root attested
in Isa. :, passim.
In addition to establishing imperative bases of occurring forms, the
author attempted to restitute their paradigms. The rules for reconstruct-
ing derivative forms are similar to those applied when inferring imper-
atives: all forms in a paradigm have to conform to the structure of
the imperative and exhibit morphological analogy with attested forms
of other verbs. Analogy with attested verbs can sometimes involve not
whole words but certain structural units within them so that hypotheti-
cal forms are based on attested forms of a slightly different morphological
pattern. In the following example forms of a tri-radical imperative â ì"Ö ä
are derived by analogy with forms of the bi-radical ø ô ä because their final
syllables are deemed to be structurally identical:
®
ê ì"Ö!ä _ ì"Ö ä éâé ø ô î ø ô ä ø ô ä éô äâììà ñàé÷ éìò øáòìàå ®ãåé øéâá øîà â ì"Ö ä
_ ì"Ö î
â ì"Ö ä is an imperative without yod. By linguistic analogy with ø ô ä, ø ô ä,
ø ô î, the past is _ ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö!ä, _ ì"Ö î. [FEA I , fol. r]
.. Analysis of Individual Verb Types
... Hiph#il Verbs
Two different types of imperative bases are proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
for attested hiph#il verbs. Firstly, imperatives with yod (amr bi-yod) are
inferred from future, past and active participle forms, e.g. ãéb ä from ãéb î
42 This principle was listed by D. Becker (:–) among the problematic
aspects of the system.
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
(Isa. :), èé a ä from eèé!a!ä (Ps. :), øé k ä from íéXé!k î (Ezra :).
It appears that attested hiph#il imperatives, even though they are mainly
spelled defectively in the Bible, are also classified as imperatives with yod.
Indeed, attested imperatives are listed among imperatives structurally
identical with _é ì"Ö ä with yod:
® ®
ã á"ë ä ï î"Ö ä ®÷ä ìò êãé áëøä ïî á ëø ä ®øää úà ìáâä ÷ë ì áâ ä ãåéá _ ì"Ö ä éìò ñ÷å
® ®
®êìã ìàúîàå úåòåùé ìéãâî ïî ìBâ ä ®ãáëä åéðæàå äæä íòä áì ïîùä ïî
Handle by analogy with _ ì"Ö ä with yod43 ì aâ ä from ø ä ä ú à ì aâ ä (Ex.
:), á kY ä from ú Ö w ä ì ò ^Eé á kY ä (Kings :), ï î"Ö ä and ã a"ë ä from
ã a"ë ä åéðæ àå äf ä í ò ä á ì ï î"Ö ä (Isa. :), ì câ ä from úÇòeÖé ìé!câ î (Ps. :),
and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
Secondly, imperatives without yod (amr bi-ġayr yod) are proposed for jus-
sive and imperfect consecutive forms, e.g. è î"Ö ä from è î"Ö z (Deut. :),
ì v ä from ì v z (Ps. :). They serve to explain the morphological pat-
tern of such forms:
® ®
ïî êìã øéâ éìà úàèçä øô úà ùâéå ®éì äúà õ ô î ®éôî ì ö ú ìàå àðãâå ã÷ ïà íìòà
® ® ® ® ®
øéâá ì ö ä ïî ì ö ú ïåëé ïà áø÷éô êìã ïëé íì ãàå õé!ô î ìé!ö ú éâé ä÷ç ïàëå ®ñðâìà àãä
ãåé
Take note that we have found é!t!î ì v z ì àå (Ps. :), é!ì ä z à õ t î (Jer.
:),44 úà h ç ä ø t ú à Öbiå (Lev. :) and similar examples of this kind.
The forms should be ìé!v z and õé!t î, but since it is not so, it is probable that
ì v z is derived from ì v ä without yod. [FEA I , fol. r]
The need to propose separate imperative bases for jussive forms clearly
demonstrates that the jussive was not interpreted by the author as having
a grammatical function of its own but rather as a form identical in
function to the future indicative.
Contrasting imperative bases with and without yod could be found
in the Diqduq45 and in a Karaite grammatical fragment T-S NS .46
but only for bi-radical verbs. The dichotomy could not be detected in the
treatise on the Hebrew verbs or al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the yod
43 The spelling of imperatives in conjugations explicitly characterized as ‘with yod’ is
somewhat inconsistent, some of them spelled plene, others defectively. The spelling also
differs across the manuscripts and, thus, must be attributed to scribes rather than the
author.
44 The form õ t î is interpreted here as an active participle rather than a noun of
instrument.
45 See Khan (a:).
46 N. Allony’s (:) attribution of this fragment to al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ is mistaken
(Khan et al. (:xii, f.n. )).
chapter six
is regarded as tābit,47 i.e. stable, present in all forms of the conjugational
pattern, but not¯ as a root letter. Indeed, the author characterized both
ìé v ä and ì v ä as having two radicals.48 This is the same in the Diqduq
where the yod is stated to belong to the underlying substance (jawhar) of
an imperative but not, it would appear, to the root of its lexical class.49
The presence or absence of yod in the imperative influences the vocal-
ization of its derivatives:
® ®
éìöà óøç äøëàå ìéàåàìà äôìúëîìà øîàåàìà ïî éðáî äìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ®
àãà äè÷ð éìà óéøöúìà äé÷á éô ïéúè÷ðìà úáì÷ðà ïéúè÷ð øîàìà øëà éô ïàëå
®
®äøéâå ìòàôìà íñàå ìá÷úñîìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô éðòà ãåé óéøöúìà éô úáú
® ®
éô àäìàçá ïéúè÷ðìà úé÷á ãåé óéøöúìà äé÷áå øáòìàå øîàìà éô úáúé íì àãàå
äìë óéøöúìà
Take note that with regard to each imperative which differs [from its past
form] in the first vowel that begins in a built-in letter and ends in a root
letter vocalized with a s. ere holds, if a yod is established in the conjugational
pattern, i.e. in the imperative, past, future, active participle, etc., the s. ere
will turn into a hireq.
. If the imperative, the past and the rest of the forms
in the conjugational pattern do not contain a yod, the s. ere will remain
unchanged in the entire conjugational pattern. [FEA I , fol. r]
Following this rule, all verb forms in conjugational patterns with yod
have regular hiph#il vowels in the final syllable, i.e. a s. ere in the imper-
ative and a hireq
. in the rest of active forms, as in _é ì"Ö ä, _é!ì"Ö!ä, _é!ì"Ö î,
_é!ì"Öé. In conjugational patterns without yod the basic forms of the imper-
ative, past, active participle, and the future have a s. ere in the final sylla-
ble by analogy with geminated hiph#il verbs, such as _ ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö!ä, _ ì"Ö î,
_ ì"Öé. Feminine and plural forms in conjugations without yod are deemed
to be the same as those in the conjugational patterns with yod (i.e.
to have regular hiph#il vowels) and are never explicitly cited. The dif-
ferentiation between derivative forms of imperatives with and with-
out yod is also characteristic of Ibn Nūh’s . thinking who linked à öÇî in
Ps. : to the imperative à öÇä without yod, and àé!öÇî in Isa. : to
the imperative àé öÇä with yod.50 On the contrary, in a Karaite work on
conjugation fragmentarily preserved in Bodl. MS Hebr. d., fol. –*
47 FEA I , fol. r.
48 FEA I , fol. v–r.
49 See Khan (a:–, ). In Ibn Nūh’s theory the jawhar is defined as ‘a series
.
of letters that are regarded as the core of the word’ (ibid, ). In contrast, the root of the
lexical class consists of letters common to all morphological bases of a lexical class (ibid,
).
50 See Khan (a:–, on Ps. :).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
and ïæ#à î are listed as alternative active participle forms of the same
ïéæ#à î
unfortunately unpreserved imperative.51
Although consistent in symbols based on the initial vowel of the
imperative and the past, the dichotomy between conjugations with and
without yod is not found in symbols based on the final vowel. The reason
for that surely is that in such symbols imperative and past forms without
yod would coincide both in the initial and the final vowel, e.g. imperative
á ùÇä, past á ùÇä. Such verbs cannot be described within the system of
symbols.
... Hitpa#el Verbs with the
Assimilation of the Prefix Taw into the First Radical
A number of conjugational patterns in Kitāb al-#Uqūd deal with hitpa#el
verbs with the assimilation of the prefix taw into the first radical. These
are ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä in the symbol á ñ î and ä kf!ä in the symbol ä@ ò. In all
patterns except ø t k!ä two past forms are said to be possible: one in a nun
and one in a heh, e.g. ø ä h!ä or ø ä hð. For ø t k!ä only the past form ø t kð is
suggested. Similar passages are found in the Diqduq on Chron. : and
in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.52 In the Bible both alternatives are
attested for verbs of the type of ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, e.g. eðY ä h!ä (Josh. :) vs.
eø"qeðå (Ezek. :), ø t kðå (Deut. :).
Of the two possible past forms the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd considered
the form in a nun to be more probable:
® ® ® ®
äøéñ ïàì ïåðá äðà ïåðèîìàå à äá ïåëé æåâé øáòìàå éððåëú ä÷ãöá ïî ãåëàî øîà ïðÇk!ä
®
äì øáòìà éðáî à ä äìåà éô ìàòôðàìà óéøàöú ïî ñôðìà éô øîà ïàë àãà äâììà
® ® ® ®
øáòìà àî äôéøöú áøà÷é àîéô àâ ã÷å ø ä è!ä êìã ïò ãù éãìà ìá ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá
®
ø ô ë!ä ìúî ïåðá äðî
ïðÇk!äis an imperative inferred from éððÇk!z äJ@"ö!a (Isa. :). The past can
be in a heh but most likely it is in a nun. Indeed, it is the way of the language
that an intransitive infi#āl imperative begins in a built-in heh and has the
past form and the active participle beginning in a nun. An exception is
ø ä h!ä, yet in similar conjugational patterns there are verbs with past forms
in a nun, for example, ø t k!ä. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
This passage demonstrates that the author analyzed hitpa#el verbs with
assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#āl rather than ifti#āl. The same
is confirmed by the fact that in the division of conjugations into the
51 Bodl. MS Hebr. d., fol. v.
52 See Khan (a:, b:, , ).
chapter six
conjugations of í ä ä (hiph#il verbs), ïð"ä (niph#al verbs) and ú î ä ä (hitpa#el
verbs) hitpa#el verbs with the assimilation of the prefix taw are dis-
cussed in the section on ïð"ä. The pattern ø t k!ä is properly attributed
to ïð"ä whereas ø ä h!ä, ïðÇk!ä and ä kf!ä are mentioned but not counted
as members of the group because they can have two alternative past
forms:
®ïð"ä ìöô
®
ìåà àâ éìöà øéâ à ä øîàìà ìåà ïàëå ®®® ìàòôðàìì ñôðìà äâéö äúâéö øîà ìë
®
ïð"ä óåøçìà äãäì èàáøìàå éìöà øéâ ïåð ìòàôìà íñà ìåàå éìöà øéâ ïåð øáòìà
® ® ®
äñîë øëàåàìà óìúëîìà ìéàåàìà ÷ôúîìà áàáìà ïîå ®®® óéøàöú äãò ìîùú éäå
® ® ®
æåâé ä ëæ!äå ïðÇëäå ø ä è!ä éäå äúìúå ®ø î Ö!äå ®äð á!äå ®ø ô ë!äå ®òð ë!äå ®è ì î!ä éäå óéøàöú
® ®
äìîâìà éô àäúããò íì êìãìô à äáå ïåðá øáòìà ïåëé
Section on ïð"ä
Each imperative which has an intransitive morphological form of an infi#āl
… and an imperative beginning in a non-root heh, has a past form begin-
ning in a non-root nun and an active participle beginning in a non-root
nun. The mnemonic for these letters is ïð"ä and it contains a number of con-
jugational patterns … From the chapter ‘On identical first vowels [of the
imperative and the past] but different final vowels [of the imperative and
the past]’ are five conjugational patterns, namely, è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø t k!ä, äð a!ä,
ø î g!ä. Three [patterns], namely ø ä h!ä, ïðÇk!ä and ä kf!ä can have a past in a
nun and in a heh. For this reason I did not include them in the total.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
Furthermore, the arrangement of conjugational patterns within the sym-
bols á ñ î and ä@ ò testifies that hitpa#el verbs with the assimilation of taw
were related by the author to infi#āl. Indeed, in each case they are grouped
with other niph#al verbs and separated from hitpa#el’s.53
The reason that the conjugational patterns under analysis are not
construed as ifti#āl is that, in the opinion of the author, the prefix taw
is never elided from ifti#āl conjugations. Intransitive conjugations which
lack the taw belong to infi#āl:
®
ìàòúôàìà óéøöúå ®äð á!ä è ç Ö!ä è ì î!ä ÷ë å ú àäéô ïåëé àì ìàòôðàìà óéøàöúô
õ î à"ú!ä ø ë î"ú!ä äìå÷ë ä÷øàôé àì å ú äéô ïåëé
Conjugational patterns of the type of infi#āl do not have a taw, e.g. è ì n!ä,
è ç g!ä, äð a!ä. A conjugational pattern of the type of ifti#āl has a taw which
never disappears, as in ø k î"ú!ä, õ n à"ú!ä. [FEA I , fol. v]
53 See ...
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
On the contrary, Abū al-Faraj Hārūn classified such forms as ‘conju-
gation that is connected with the ifti#āl conjugation … despite the fact
that taw does not occur in it.’54 He hypothesized that ‘the taw of the ifti#āl
conjugation has been elided from such forms and has been substituted by
a dagesh, which may indicate the elision of letters.’55 In accordance with
this opinion, he grouped conjugations ø ä h!ä and ïðÇk!ä with other hitpa#el
conjugations and suggested past and participle forms in a heh and a mem
respectively, i.e. past ø ä h!ä, active participle m.sg. ø ä h!î; past ïðÇk!ä, active
participle m.sg. ïðÇk!î, while mentioning that the past form ø ä hð in a nun
was also possible.56 According to a Karaite grammatical fragment JTS
ENA .–, fol. r–v ø ä h!ä has the pattern tafā#ul and ø t k!ä the pat-
tern tafa##ul whereas regular hitpa#el verbs are construed as tafa#lal, the
pattern of the Arabic II form of quadriliteral verbs.
... Final Heh Verbs
A number of hypothetical final heh57 imperatives with morphological
patterns not directly attested in the text of the Bible are posited in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd:
. Hypothetical imperatives of the type of ä ÖO a (conjugational pattern
ä ÖO a in the symbol épb) are proposed for strong pi#el verbs in which
gemination is reduced when the following vowel is a vocalic shewa, e.g.
é ÖO á"î (Ps. :). As is reflected in the sources, verbs of this type caused
a great deal of disagreement among Karaite grammarians.58 According
to one opinion, the dagesh in forms such as é ÖO á"î and íeà"ì îéå was
elided, their imperatives being Ö w a and à l î. According to the other
opinion, these forms should not be mixed up with geminated ones but
rather separate imperatives ä ÖO a and ä à"ì î should be posited. Among
the proponents of the latter view were the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd and
the author of the treatise on the Hebrew verbs. Their main argument
54 Khan et al. (:, II..).
55 Khan et al. (:, II..).
56 Khan et al. (:, , I.., ).
57 I use the term final heh rather than final weak to distinguish hypothetical conjuga-
tions with a heh in the end of imperatives of some final strong verbs from attested verbs
with a weak third radical.
58 See al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ (Khan et al. (:, II..)); the treatise on the Hebrew verbs
(Khan (b:, ff.)); the Diqduq on Ps. :, Job :, Eccl. : (Khan (a: ,
, , )); Kitāb al-#Uqūd (FEA I , fol. r).
chapter six
in favor of imperatives of the type of ä ÖO a was that this conjugational
pattern was actually attested in the Bible in the future äW#ç ú"z (Jer. :)
from which an imperative äV#ç z was deemed to be deducible by the
straightforward elision of the future prefix, as well as in the past forms
äT"ô!Ö (Job :) and éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) with reconstructed imperatives
äV"ô Ö and ä î#çé respectively. These imperatives together with pairs such
as eç"ì!Ö (Ps. :) with raphe and eç"l!Ö (Judg. :) with dagesh proved that
‘each form with a dagesh has [an imperative base with] a dagesh, and each
form with a raphe has [an imperative base with] a raphe.’59
. Imperatives of the type of ä ëYE ä (conjugational patterns ä ëYE ä in
the symbol épb and äVæ"ò ä in the symbol ä k î) are created for hiph#il
forms with a shewa instead of a hireq . under the second radical, e.g.
eëYEiå (Jer. :), íéXæ"ò î (Chron. :). According to the author, the
imperative ä ëYE ä had been proposed by other grammarians who argued
that ‘if the imperative were _VE ä, the form would have been eëéXEiå, like
_ ì"Ö ä–eëé!ì"Öiå.’60 The source of this statement could not be established as
none of the Karaite grammars currently known to me contain any such
imperatives.
. Imperatives of the type of äb ç (conjugational pattern ä q k in the symbol
ä@ ò) are inferred from geminated pa#al forms stressed on the ultima
with a resultant short qamas. in the pretonic syllable, e.g. éb ç (Nahum
:), íef áé (Zeph. :). Earlier Karaite grammarians sought to provide an
explanation for the difference between forms of geminated pa#al verbs
such as ép] (Lament. :) with penultimate stress and épT (Zeph. :)
with the stress on the ultima. Ibn Nūh. offered two alternative opinions on
the issue: firstly, that ép] was derived from ï] and épT from a hypothetical
final heh imperative äpT; secondly, that ép] and épT were both derived
from ï] since Çà may sometimes become short (à.61 The author of an early
Karaite grammatical work in Judaeo-Persian supported the latter view
and maintained that the difference in the morphological form resulted
from the fact that ép] was disjoined and épT conjoined.62
59 éôøìà ïî éôøî ìëå ùâãìà ïî ùåâãî ìë [FEA I , fol. r]. See also
..
®
60 eëé!ì"ùéå ê ì"ù ä ìú ®
fol. v].
î eëéXEéå àâ ã÷ ïàë _VE ä àäøîà ïàë åì [FEA I ,
61 See Khan (a:, , on Ps. : and Lament. : respectively).
62 See Khan (b:–, –).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
. Imperatives of the type of ä ë"Ö î (conjugational pattern ä ë"Ö î in the
symbol ä@ ò) are inferred from m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms of pa#al
verbs with a short qamas. instead of a hireq
. under the first radical, e.g. eë"Ö î
(Ezek. :). Hypothetical imperatives of the type of ä ë"Ö î are registered
in the sources. According to Ibn Nūh. one scholar posited ä ÖY c for eÖY@å
(Ps. :) by analogy with äBE Ö (presumably from eãE Öå in Jer. :).63
It seems, however, that according to Ibn Nūh. himself such forms have
two levels of derivation: forms like eë"Ö î (Ezek :), eãE Öå (Jer. :)
are derived from imperatives with the suffix -ah, i.e. ä ë"Ö î, ä@E Ö, which
are, in turn, derived from regular pa#al imperatives with a holam, . i.e.
64
_&Ö"î. In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ both äBE Ö and ä@E Ö are mentioned as possible
derivational bases of eãE Öå.65
. Imperatives of the type of äV(à z (conjugational pattern äV(à z in the
symbol ä@ ò) are proposed for idiosyncratic forms with short qamas.
under the first radical and hataph. qamas. under the second radical,
i.e. eäV(à úé (Isa. :) and é!î(ñJ (Sam. :). These imperatives are
also found in T-S NS .r and Mosseri I..r which belong to a
fragmentarily preserved Karaite work on verbal conjugations.
. Imperatives of the type of ä èeô"Ö (conjugational pattern ä èeô"Ö in the
symbol ä@ ò) are inferred from idiosyncratic pausal forms eèet"Öé (Ex.
:) and íVeî"Ö!z (Prov. :) with ultimate stress. The tradition of
positing imperatives of the type of ä èeô"Ö is attested in earlier sources.66
Alternative bases proposed in the sources for eèet"Öé and íVeî"Ö!z are nouns
with the form èeô"Ö, øeî"Ö.
In all cases, adding a final vowel with a mater lectionis heh permitted
the production of imperative bases which retain the vocalic and prosodic
patterns of the attested forms while having a regular syllabic structure of
Biblical Hebrew. In ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, äb ç and ä ë"Ö î the final vowel serves to
break up clusters of vowelless consonants or avoid a geminated conso-
nant at the end of the imperative. In äb ç and ä ë"Ö î the resulting shift of
tone to the final syllable is, furthermore, essential for the preservation
63 See Khan (a:, on Ps. :).
64 See Khan (a:, , on Ps. :).
65 See Khan et al. (:, II..).
66 See the treatise on the Hebrew verbs (Khan (b:–)); the Diqduq on Prov.
:, Ruth : (Khan (a:–, )); al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ (Khan et al. (:,
I..)).
chapter six
of the short qamas. . In ä èeô"Ö the final vowel probably serves to preserve
the ultimate stress.67
The procedure of adding a final heh could not have felt completely
ad hoc to Karaite grammarians. Indeed, hypothetical final heh impera-
tives are described in Kitāb al-#Uqūd as ‘consisting of two root letters fol-
lowed by a heh,’68 ‘consisting of three root letters followed by a heh’69 and
‘consisting of three root letters preceded and followed by a heh’70 respec-
tively. On the other hand, attested final weak imperatives are described
as ‘consisting of two root letters followed by a heh,’71 and ‘consisting of
two root letters preceded and followed by a heh.’72 It is obvious that
these descriptions differ only in the number of radicals. Given the fact
that the length of a verbal root was deemed variable and the final heh
did not count as a root letter, hypothetical final heh imperative bases
must have been perceived as legitimate members of the final heh group.
The same is confirmed by the proposed derivative forms of hypothetical
final heh imperatives. Among the given forms are: () imperative ä ÖO a,
past ä ÖO!a, active participle m.sg. ä ÖO á"î, passive participle m.sg. ä ÖO%á"î,
future ä ÖO áé, f.sg. past ä ú"ÖO!a; () imperative ä ëYE ä, past ä ëYE!ä, active
participle m.sg. ä ëYE î; () imperative ä ë"Ö î, past ä ë"Ö î, future ä ë"Ö î"à,
f.sg. past ä ú"ë"Ö î. It is clear that these forms mimic the paradigm of final
weak verbs in that their final vowel is s. ere in the imperative, qamas. in the
past and segol in the active participle, and the f.sg. past form ends in a
characteristic -tah.73
... Third Guttural Verbs
Third guttural imperatives in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are vocalized with: () s. ere
and furtive patah. in the final syllable; () patah. in the final syllable. The
vocalic pattern of an imperative repeats that of the derivative form it is
inferred from. Imperatives in -ea are inferred from attested forms with a
furtive patah, . e.g. ç zY ä from çé!zYé (Job :; conjugational pattern ò a"Ö ä
in the symbol épb), òBe!ä from òBe!z (Prov. :; conjugational pattern
òBe!ä in the symbol Çøé!Ö), òb z"Ö!ä from òb z"Ö!ä"ì (Sam. :; conjugational
67 Khan (b:).
68 à ä àîäðò øë®
àúéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. v].
®
69 à ä àäðò øë ® ®
àúéå äééìöà óåøç äúìú ïî [FEA I , fol. v, passim].
®
70 à ä íäðò øë ® ®
àúéå à ä íäîã÷úéå äééìöà óåøç äúìú ïî [FEA I , fol. v].
®
71 à ä àîäðò øë àúéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. r, passim].
®
72 à ä àîäðò øë àúéå à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. r, passim].
73 See also Khan (a:).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
pattern ç t z"ñ!ä in the symbol á ñ î).74 Imperatives in -a are proposed
for attested forms with a patah. on the second radical, e.g. ò a"Ö ä from
ò a"Öiå (Gen. :; conjugational pattern ø ö"ô ä in the symbol épb), çbð"ú!ä
from çbð"úé (Dan. :).75 In hiph#il, imperatives in -ea are found in
conjugational patterns with yod whereas imperatives in -a belong to
patterns based on jussive forms without yod, e.g. òb ä from eòébé (Ps. :;
conjugational pattern çép ä in the symbol épb) vs. òb ä from òb zå (Ex. :;
conjugational pattern Öb ä in the symbol épb).
Imperatives in -ea appear to have been regarded as the default form
by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Indeed, imperatives òVæ and d î"ä î"ú!ä
are inferred from plural forms in which the final vowel is not directly
evident, namely a pausal past eòTæ (Isa. :; conjugational pattern ç çÇ×
in the symbol á ñ î) and an imperfect consecutive eä"î"ä î"úiå76 (Judg. :;
conjugational pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î).
The vocalization of the imperative is always retained in the future
and where possible in other derivative forms as well. Thus, in hiph#il,
the imperative ò a"Ö ä has the past òé!a"Ö!ä and the active participle òé!a"Ö î,
whereas the imperative ø ö"ô ä has the past ø ö"ô!ä and the active participle
ø ö"ô î (conjugational patterns ø ö"ô ä and ò a"Ö ä in the symbol épb).
Third guttural imperatives in s. ere and furtive patah. are extremely
rare in the text of the Bible and occur only in pause.77 Yet they were
regularly proposed by Karaite authors alongside the imperatives with a
patah, . presumably by analogy with final strong verbs. Apart from Kitāb
al-#Uqūd, they are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs,78 in the
Diqduq (on Ps. :; Job :, :, :, :, passim)79 and in
Me"or #Ayin (conjugational pattern ò Öe!ä).80 Examples in the Diqduq show
that when the attested derivative does not give a clear clue at the vocalic
structure of its imperative, Ibn Nūh. presented imperatives in -ea and in -a
as alternatives. For instance, the imperative of ç ì$àð is inferred to be ç ì à ä
or ç ì à ä (the Diqduq on Job :), that of éð ç"g ôéå either ç g t or ç g t (the
Diqduq on Lament. :), the imperative of ò òÇø"ú!ä is ò òÇø"ú!ä or ò òÇø"ú!ä
74 Additional examples are ç aæ (conjugational pattern ç aæ in the symbol épb) and ç çÇ×
(conjugational pattern ç çÇ× in the pattern á ñ î) for which no source verses are quoted.
75 FEA I , fol. r.
76 MT: eä"î"ä î"ú!äå.
77 Gesenius (§). The only such imperative I am aware of is ç n × in Ps. :.
78 See Khan (b:).
79 See Khan (a:, , , , , passim).
80 See Zislin (:).
chapter six
(the Diqduq on Ps. :).81 No examples of alternative imperatives are
found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd where the vocalic structure of the imperative is
in strict concord with the attested derivative form.
... Middle Weak Verbs in Pa#al
In Kitāb al-#Uqūd the default middle weak consonant in pa#al is waw.
Middle yod imperatives are derived only from verb forms with an explicit
yod. For example, from the ambiguous past form é!z"ì ç (Isa. :) our
author inferred the imperative ìeç (conjugational pattern áeÖ in the
symbol ì òeÖ) and from the clear-cut m.pl. imperative eìé!ç (Ps. :)
the m.sg. imperative ìé!ç (conjugational pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö).
Moreover, only middle waw imperatives were posited for verbs with no
attested future, imperative or nominal forms, e.g. õeà from é!z"ö à (Jer.
:), ìeæ from íé!ìf ä (Isa. :), íez from eð"î z (Ps. :),82 òeì from eò ì
(Job :) (conjugational patterns áeÖ, òeð in the symbol ì òeÖ). Along the
same lines, a hypothetical imperative çe÷ but not çéN was proposed by the
author as a derivational base for the past form çJ:83
®
úîòæ àîë øáò çJ ïàë åì äì ìé÷ ®íéáø íéî ìò çJ å÷ë çJ çK øáò ïà ìà÷ ïàô
® ®
®á Ö áeÖ ïîå íJ íe÷ ïîå òð òeð ïî øáòìà éâé àîë çe÷ àâ ã÷ ïàëì
If somebody says that the past form of çK is çJ, as in íé!aU íé î ì ò çJ (Ezek.
:), it should be said to him that if çJ were the past form as you claimed,
[the imperative] would be çe÷ as the past of òeð is òð, the past of íe÷ is íJ
and the past of áeÖ is á Ö. [FEA I , fol. r]
In contrast, Ibn Nūh. sometimes suggested middle waw and middle yod
imperatives as alternatives, e.g. _e× or _é!× for z"ë × (Job :) and íé!× or
íe× for éð"ú î × (Cant. :).84
Jussive and imperfect consecutive forms of middle waw verbs in pa#al
were treated in different ways in Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Jussive forms such as ãð z
(Jer. :) were derived from imperatives of the type of ãð and attributed
to the conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk. On the contrary,
imperfect consecutive forms were seen as conjoined (mudāf . ) and derived
from middle weak imperatives:
81 See Khan (a:, , ).
82 eð"î z
is a deviant form of the root t.m.m. in pa#al in which the separating vowel
between the stem and the pl. afformative is lacking (Gesenius (§dd)).
83 çJ is nowadays seen as a textual error (Gesenius (§g); BDB ()).
84 See Khan (a:, ).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
® ®
äøîà ïàå óàöî äðà í äéå á Öéå í÷éå àâ ã÷ ìá÷úñîìà úéàø éúî åìà÷ íäðà íìòàå
® ® ® ® ® ®
âøë äôàöàìà ìâàì åà äåì÷úúñà íäìòìå áeÖéå íe÷éå éâé ïà ä÷ç ïàëå íeä áeÖ íe÷
®á Öéå íJéå õî÷á
Take note that they have said that when you encounter such future forms
as íJiå, á Öiå, í äiå, these are conjoined. The imperatives are íe÷, áeÖ, íeä,
and [the forms] should be, by rule, áeÖiå, íe÷iå. Maybe they have found
[the latter] difficult or else pronounced them with a qamas. , i.e. íJiå, á Öiå,
for the reason of conjoining. [FEA I , fol. v]
Passive participles of middle weak verbs in pa#al, e.g. ä îe× (Sam. :),
íé!ìeî (Josh. :), é áeÖ (Micah :), were not recognized as such by the
author. According to him, the people of the language avoided passive
participles which have only one vowel. As a result passive participles of
middle weak verbs in pa#al which would consist of two consonants and
thus have a single vowel were not created in the language. Instead the
people of the language used passive participles of corresponding hiph#il
forms. In the conjugational pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö the author
ascertains:
® ®
áø÷éå í × ä óéøöú ïî ìåòôî àðãâå ìá íé!× óéøöú ïî ìîòúñî ìåòôî äì àðãâå àîå
ïî ìåòôî åìîòúñé íäàðéàø àî ïàì äôéøöú ïî ìåòôî íé!×ì åìîòúñé íì íäðà
® ®
êàãå ãåéå åàå ä×ò ìåòôî éô åðá àî ìúî óåøç åà óøç äòî åðáé ïà àìà è÷ô ïéôøç
®
êìîìà äéô àâ àîì ïéôøçá ìåòôîìà ïàë åìå ãçàå êìî äàôëé àî ìåòôîìà ïà
® ®
®äåâàúçà éúî í × ä ìåòôî åìîòúñà êìãìô ãçàå
We could not find a passive participle belonging to the conjugation íé!×, yet
we have found a passive participle belonging to the conjugation í × ä. It is
quite probable that they did not use for íé!× a passive participle belonging to
its conjugation because we have never seen them use a passive participle
consisting of only two letters. Rather they built into it a letter or two, as
they built into the passive participle of ä ×#ò a waw and yod. This is because
one vowel is not sufficient for a passive participle yet a passive participle
consisting of two letters would have only one vowel. This is why when they
needed a passive participle they used one belonging to í × ä.
[FEA I , fol. v]
Not all grammarians shared this opinion. Thus, al-Fāsı̄ translated ä úé ä
® ®
ä îe× (Sam. :) with äìåòâî úðàë85 and íé!ìeî (Josh. :) with ïéðåúëî86
showing that he recognized the forms as passive participles. Ibn Nūh.
maintained that the form áeÖ in ä î ç"ì!î é áeÖ (Micah :) was a pas-
sive participle.87 On the contrary, Abū al-Faraj Hārūn stated in al-Kitāb
85 See Skoss (–:II, ).
86 See Skoss (–:II, ).
87 See Khan (a:, on Prov. :).
chapter six
al-Kāfı̄ that the imperative íé!× does not have a passive participle of its
own so that í ×eî derived from í × ä is used.88
The theory that passive participles with a single vowel are impossible
in Hebrew forced the author to seek alternative explanations for attested
passive participle forms of middle weak verbs. When discussing íé!ìeî é!k
®
eé ä (Josh. :) the author stated that íé!ìeî should be translated as ïéð!úúëî
® 89
rather then ïéðåúëî. Both forms mean ‘circumcised’ in Arabic and the
®
choice is based on purely grammatical considerations that ïéðåúëî is a
®
passive participle whereas ïéð!úúëî is an active participle.90 The author
argued that inasmuch as other verbs of this conjugational pattern do
not have passive participles, íé!ìeî should not be analyzed and translated
as a passive participle either. Instead it should be seen as analogous to
such forms as ä î ç"ì!î é áeÖ (Micah :), ï ôb ä éVeñ (Jer. :), á ì âeñ (Prov.
:), which the author construed as ‘nouns of agent not belonging to
a conjugational pattern’ (ism fā#il alladı̄
. lā min tas. rı̄f ), i.e. words which
have the grammatical function but not the form of active participles.91
... Passive Imperative Bases
Some imperatives in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are inferred from passive verbs.
Examples include ÖVb from eÖTâé (Job :), _ ò&c from eë#ò&c (Ps. :),
äVÇæ from äWæé (Job :), ä l k from el k (Ps. :), ä q k from eq k
(Ps. :), äð"ô ä from eð"ô ä (Jer. :), ä àY ä from ä àY î (Ex. :), ä ìâ ä
from ä ìâ ä (Esth. :), etc.
88 See Khan et al. (:, I..). D. Becker (:) included this statement by
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn in his list of problematic issues of the system of symbols.
89 FEA I , fol. v.
90 A close correspondence between a word’s translation and its morphological struc-
ture was a prominent feature of the grammatical thinking of Ibn Nūh. (see Khan
(a:–)).
91 FEA I , fol. v–r. Other ‘nouns of agent not belonging to a conjugational
pattern’ are á ö ç, á ä à, õ ô ç, èé!l Ö, õé!n à (FEA I , fol. r). In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ forms
such as ÷é!c ö, èé!l Ö, õé!n à are characterized as ‘another form of word [which] may take the
place of the noun of agent in a certain respect’ (Khan et al. (:, I..)). According
to Abū al-Faraj Hārūn the noun of agent ‘is derived by inflection according to the pattern
that is required by analogy’ (Khan et al. (:, I..)), whereas ÷é!c ö, èé!l Ö, õé!n à are
‘not formed according to the requirements of the analogy (verbal inflection)’ (Khan et
al. (:, I..)). The latter forms are referred to in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ with the Arabic
term for verbal adjectives al-s. ifa al-mušabbiha bi-ism al-fā#il (see Wright (§–)). In
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil the distinction is made between ism fā#il ma" hūd. min al-amr wa-
l-tas. rı̄f (‘noun of agent derived from an imperative and a conjugational ˘ pattern’), e.g.
÷ ÖÇò, and ism fā#il laysa ma" hūd . min al-tas. rı̄f (‘noun of agent which is not derived from
a conjugational pattern’), e.g.˘ ÷ÇÖ ò (FEA I , fol. r–v).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
Passive imperatives are a prominent feature of the early Karaite gram-
matical tradition.92 They were proposed as derivational bases for pas-
sive verb forms, e.g. í w\ for é!z"î w\ in Ps. : or ì aY%k for ì aY%ë"î in
Chron. : and are found, for instance, in the Diqduq,93 in a gram-
matical commentary on the Bible in Judaeo-Persian94 and in a Genizah
fragment JTS ENA .–, fol. r, v. According to Kitāb al-#Uqūd, the
rationale behind passive imperatives consisted in the preservation of the
passive vocalic pattern throughout the paradigm:
® ® ®
óéøöúìà òéîâ éô âæìà åúáúé ïà åãàøà íäðà
They wanted to establish the qubbus. in the entire conjugational pattern.
[FEA I , fol. v]
The concept of passive imperatives was refuted by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn
on logical grounds.95 In line with Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, our author argues
against them:
® ® ®
åùã÷î ïåëî êìù%äå å÷ë äìòàô íñé íì ìòô éN"ì%à äøéñôú àâ ã÷ âæìà òöåîì ê ì"Ö%äå
® ®
äìòàô íñé íì ìòô øáòìà ñðâ ïî øîàìà ïåëé ïà éâáðéô øáò é÷"ì%à ê ì"Ö%ä ïàë àãàå
®
®íåäôî øéâ íàìë àãäå àK"ì%à _ ì"ù%ä äì ìå÷úå äøîàú ïî ìáà÷ú ïàá åäå
On the account of the qubbus. , the translation of _ ì"Ö%ä is ‘was thrown,’
which is a passive verb, as in ÇÖ cO!î ïÇë"î _ ì"Ö%äå (Dan. :). If the past is
_ ì"Ö%ä, ‘was thrown,’ then the imperative must belong to the same kind
as the past, i.e. be a passive verb. It [means] that you would command
somebody by saying _ ì"Ö%ä ‘be thrown!’ This utterance is incomprehensible.
[FEA I , fol. r]
To explain why the above-mentioned passive imperatives were neverthe-
less proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd it is useful to pay attention to their mor-
phological form. In the Diqduq imperative bases were proposed for pas-
sive verbs of all types. In Kitāb al-#Uqūd imperatives are never inferred
from attested passive verbs vocalized with a qubbus. but only from certain
types of pu#al and hoph#al verbs with a holam
. or a short qamas. . It appears
that passive imperatives were proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd only for those
passive verbs which have structurally identical active counterparts. Thus,
second guttural pu#al forms with a holam . such as eë#ò&c (Ps. :) and
äWæé (Job :) have the same vocalic structure as active po#el verbs, e.g.
eîYæ (Ps. :) and é!ú ×ÇÖ (Isa. :) respectively (see the conjugational
92 Khan (a:).
93 See Khan (a:, –, ).
94 See Khan (b:–).
95 Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter six
pattern ïðÇk in the symbol á ñ î and the conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the
symbol ä@ ò). Third weak pu#al forms with a short qamas. such as eq k
(Ps. :) are analogical to geminated pa#al forms with short qamas. of
the kind of éb ç (Nahum :) for which a hypothetical imperative äb ç was
proposed in Kitāb al-#Uqūd (see conjugational pattern ä q k in the sym-
bol ä@ ò). As for third weak hoph#al verbs with a short qamas. , no active
pattern is structurally identical with them but a m.pl. imperative eð"ô ä is
actually attested in Jer. :. Presumably, it was the view of the author
that once a vocalic pattern is attested in an active verb or a recorded
imperative, all verbs with this pattern regardless of their meaning can
have imperative bases. On the other hand, if a vocalic pattern does not
occur in active verbs, imperatives should not be inferred from passive
verbs so vocalized. This points out that the author’s approach to deriva-
tion was structural rather than semantic and underlines his tendency to
regularize grammatical features of verbs. This tendency was less charac-
teristic of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s thought. Thus, he regarded eð"ô ä (Jer. :)
as exceptional and avoided proposing imperatives for other verbs with
short qamas. that stands in place of a qubbus. .96
The hypothetical passive imperatives are vocalized with s. ere in the final
syllable, which is the same as the active imperatives they are patterned
with. This vocalization of all passive imperative bases is also found in Ibn
Nūh’s 97
. Diqduq. In conjugational patterns äVÇæ and äð"ô ä two participle
forms are derived from each passive imperative, i.e. active participle äWÇæ"î
and passive participle äWeæ"î from äVÇæ; and active participle äð"ô î and pas-
sive participle äð"ô%î or äð"ô î from äð"ô ä. Identical participle forms are cited
by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.98 These forms are semantically
problematic and the author’s interpretation of the distinction in mean-
ing between the two participles is left to conjecture. It is possible that
the author translated äVÇæ and äð"ô ä with Arabic VIII form verbs which,
although formally active have a passive component to their meaning and
from which an active and a passive participle can be formed. An example
of this strategy is found in the analysis of eé ä íé!ìeî é!k (Josh. :) translated
®
by the author with the VIII form active participle ïéð!úúëî instead of the I
®
form passive participle ïéðåúëî in order to stress his view that íé!ìeî here
is not a passive participle.99
96 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
97 See Khan (a:).
98 See Khan et al. (:, , I.., ).
99 See ...
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
... Pausal Forms
Three phonetic processes linked to pause are mentioned in Kitāb al-
#Uqūd:
. The lengthening of a patah. to a qamas. :
äöîà÷ äçúàôìì úøëîìà ïà äì ìé÷
It should be said to him that the pausal equivalent of a patah. is a qamas. .
[FEA I , fol. r]
. The shift of stress from the penultima to the ultima in f.sg. past forms
of niph#al verbs:
®
֥ "ì"îðå úøëî øáò ä è ì֥ "îð ïà íìòàå
óàöî øáò ä è
Take note that ä è ì֥ "îð is the disjoined past form and ä è֥ "ì"îð is the conjoined
past form. [FEA I , fol. v]
. The lengthening of a segol to a s. ere in imperfect indicative forms of
third weak pi#el verbs:
® ® ® ® ® ®
úøëî ïéúè÷ðá éãìàå óàöî è÷ð äúìúá éãìà ïàô äå ö"ú äå ö"ú úéàø àãà ïà íìòàå
Take note that when you encounter äe ö"z and äe ö"z the form with a segol is
conjoined and the form with a s. ere is disjoined. [FEA I , fol. v]
The lengthening of a patah. to a qamas. is always taken into account when
attributing attested forms to conjugational patterns.100 Examples include:
. The pausal forms ø îð (Jer. :) and eò zð (Job :) are attributed to
the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä the distinctive feature of which is the
vocalization of the second radical with a patah. in all forms (conjuga-
tional pattern ÷ n!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö).
. The m.sg. form of é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :) is said to be ì àâ à (conjugational
pattern ì àâ à in the symbol ä k î).
. Pausal past forms eáT&ç (Judg. :), óT&× (Lev. :) are attributed to
the conjugational pattern ïðÇk with the past form ïðÇk (conjugational
pattern ïðÇk in the symbol á ñ î).
Notably, qamas. was regarded as the pausal equivalent only of patah. but
not of s. ere. Indeed, the pausal imperfect form _ l ä"úé (Job :) was
not attributed to the conjugational pattern _ l ä"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î.
100 The other two processes are less relevant in this regard.
chapter six
Rather, an imperative _ l ä"ú!ä with a final patah. was inferred from it.101
The same principle was applied by Ibn Nūh. in the Diqduq.102
Pausal forms other then those discussed above were regarded by the
author as independent verb forms and structurally akin imperative bases
were proposed for them.
. From pausal imperfect consecutive forms Öbiå (Judg. :), Öð àiå (Sam.
:) and íATiå (Jonah :) the author inferred imperatives Öb ä, Öð à ä and
íAT ä (conjugational pattern Öb ä in the symbol épb, conjugational pattern
Öð à ä in the symbol ä á à and conjugational pattern íAT ä in the symbol
é!ì ò). This leads to the conclusion that the shift of a context s. ere to a pausal
patah. was not recognized by the author.
. Hypothetical imperatives were inferred from third guttural niph#al
verbs vocalized in pause with s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. òBe!ä from òBe!z
(Prov. :), ç ú t!ä from ç ú té (Job :) (conjugational pattern òBe!ä in
the symbol Çøé!Ö and conjugational pattern òð k!ä in the symbol á ñ î). This
demonstrates that the author was not familiar with the shift of a final
patah. in context forms to a final s. ere and furtive patah. in pausal forms of
third guttural niph#al verbs.
It is conceivable that whether the vocalization of a particular attested
form is recognized as influenced by pause depends upon the presence
of non-pausal forms with the same vocalic pattern. Indeed, forms with
qamas. treated in Kitāb al-#Uqūd as pausal do not have context parallels.
On the contrary, pausal imperfects of the type of Öbiå, Öð àiå, etc., on the
one hand, and òBe!z and ç ú té, on the other hand, are analogous to attested
non-pausal forms of third guttural and resh verbs. For Öbiå and Öð àiå the
analogy is straightforward and the verbs are, indeed, given in respective
conjugational patterns, i.e. òb zå (Ex. :), ø ö ò úå (Sam. :). As for
òBe!z and ç ú té, this vocalic pattern might have been legitimized by con-
text infinitive forms with s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. ò á g!ä attested in Jer.
:, :. It is, in fact, not impossible that such forms were regarded as
imperatives with the function of infinitives. Indeed, the author believed
that every imperative can be used as an infinitive:103
101 FEA I , fol. r–v.
102 See Khan (a:).
103 The distinction between inf. abs. and inf. cstr. was not made in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
® ® ®
êìã èáöàô àøãöî ìòâéå äúâéö éìò åäå øàòúñé ïà çìöé øîà ìëô
Each imperative in its own form (i.e. without change in form) can by
extension be used as an infinitive. Learn it well! [FEA I , fol. v]
Taking into consideration that niph#al infinitive constructs of strong
verbs are identical with their respective m.sg. imperatives, all ì è w!ä forms
were probably regarded by the author as imperatives, some with the
function of infinitives. In the case of final guttural verbs this would
mean that context niph#al imperatives in -ea could have been considered
attested and could have served as the base of analogy for inferring further
imperatives from pausal forms.
... Instances of Babylonian Type Vocalization
Some vocalizations in the manuscripts of Kitāb al-#Uqūd betray Babylo-
nian pronunciation.104 In a number of such cases it is possible to prove
that these vocalizations are authorial because they are supported by inner
textual evidence.
. Vocalization of the second radical in m.sg. past form of pi#el, po#el,
hitpa#el, hitpo#el and quadriliteral verbs
In all pi#el, po#el, hitpa#el, hitpo#el and quadriliteral verbs the second
radical of m.sg. past form is vocalized with a patah, . e.g. _U a, ïðÇk,
ç çÇ×, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì aY!k, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä (see respec-
tive conjugational patterns). This holds even when the m.sg. past is
attested and vocalized with a s. ere in MT. Thus, ø t kð is vocalized with
a patah. (conjugational pattern ø t k!ä in the symbol á ñ î) even though
the attested form has a s. ere, ø t kðå (Deut. :). The vocalization of such
forms with a patah. and patah. only is a feature of the Babylonian reading
tradition.105
Internal evidence suggests that this vocalization should be attributed
to the author rather than the scribe. Thus, all conjugational patterns
containing po#el, hitpa#el and hitpo#el verbs belong to the symbol á ñ î
104 On the Babylonian vocalization see Yeivin () and the literature cited there.
105 See Yeivin (:, , , , ). In the Tiberian reading tradition the
distribution of s. ere and patah. in the final syllable of the verbs under discussion is more
complex (see Gesenius (§§a, k); Joüon-Muraoka (§§c, b)). It is worth noting
that in Babylonian Hebrew the vocalization with the patah. is found in the imperative
and the future as well as the past, at least for hitpa#el verbs (Yevin (:)) whereas in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd it is only posited for past forms.
chapter six
where the s. ere in the symbol word stands for the final vowel of the
imperative and the patah. for the final vowel of the past, e.g. imperative
_ l ä"ú!ä–past _ l ä"ú!ä.
The possibility for the vowel of the second radical to be a s. ere was
not even considered, at least for hitpa#el verbs. Indeed, the chapter ‘On
imperatives which differ from their past forms neither in the first nor in
the last vowel’ discusses only hitpa#el imperatives inferred from future
forms with a patah, . such as âp ò"ú!ä inferred from âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), which
are said to be identical with their past forms:
® ®
ò lâ"ú!ä óp à"ú!ä ÷ ô à"ú!ä çbð"ú!ä âp ò"ú!ä ì ôð"ú!ä ïp ç"ú!ä øëàåàìà äçåúôî øîàåà àäìë úâ
®
àäôìàëé àì àäì øáòìàå
All these imperatives come out with a final patah, . [namely] ïp ç"ú!ä, ì tð"ú!ä,
âp ò"ú!ä, çbð"ú!ä, ÷ t à"ú!ä, óp à"ú!ä, ò lb"ú!ä, and their past does not differ from them.
[FEA I , fol. r]
Verbs with both the imperative and the past with a s. ere on the second
radical are not mentioned.
In other Karaite grammatical works the vocalization of m.sg. past
forms of pi#el and hitpa#el verbs is less rigid. Forms with a s. ere and a patah.
are sometimes presented as variants, e.g. ø ä h!ä and ø ä h!ä in the treatise
on the Hebrew verbs;106 _U a and _V a in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄;107 ø a!Ö and ø a!Ö
in the Diqduq on Chron. :.108 Some grammarians construed such
forms as derived from different imperative bases, i.e. ø a!Ö from ø a Ö and
ø a!Ö from ø a Ö.109 According to the Diqduq on Ps. : ø a!c is in origin
ø a!c which is a conjoined form of m.sg. past, whereas ø a!c is disjoined.110
In works using the system of symbols past forms of po#el, hitpa#el, hitpo#el
and quadriliteral verbs in the symbol á ñ î are invariably vocalized with
a patah,. this vocalization being confirmed by explicit statements of the
authors.111
. Vocalization of m.sg. participles of geminated niph#al verbs
In the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä the author wrote that the form of the
m.sg. participle of this verb is identical with that of m.sg. past:
106 See Khan (b:).
107 See Khan et al. (:, I..); see also Khan et al. (:, I..).
108 See Khan (a:).
109 See Khan (a:, on Chron. :).
110 See Khan (a:–).
111 See Khan et al. (:–); Zislin (:). D. Becker (:) noted this
vocalization as one of the problematic issues in the system of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
®
®øáòìà ìúî ÷ îð ìòàôìàå ®÷ îð øáòìàå ®øîà ÷ î!ä
÷ n!ä is an imperative. The past is ÷ îð. The active participle m.sg. is ÷ îð same
as the past. [FEA I , fol. v]
In the standard Masoretic vocalization niph#al participles of geminated
roots have a qamas. under the first radical, in our case ÷ îð.112 On the
contrary, in the Babylonian reading tradition a patah. is possible under
the first radical of such forms,113 suggesting that the vocalization ÷ îð is
Babylonian.
. Substitution of a segol by a patah.
The substitution of a patah. for a segol is a well-known phenomenon
of the Babylonian vocalization.114 The following cases of this substitu-
tion in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are attributable to the author. Firstly, the list of
structurally identical imperative bases in the conjugational pattern Öb ä
includes imperatives òb ä, çp ä, ò q ä and ú v ä. All these imperatives are
inferred from hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms with a patah. in the final
syllable, e.g. Öbiå (Judg. :), òb zå (Ex. :), çpiå (Kings :). ú v ä is
inferred from ú viå (Lament. :) which is vocalized ú öéå in FEA I ,
fol. v and ú öéå in FEA I , fol. v. Considering the author’s propen-
sity for establishing imperative bases which conform to the structure of
their attested derivative forms, it is clear that the original vocalization of
the author must have been ú viå with a patah, . in deviation from the MT
ú viå with a segol.
Secondly, the symbol _U a, designed for first guttural niph#al verbs with
a patah. under the prefix nun, consists of a single conjugational pattern
ä × ò ä (past ä ×#òð, active participle ä ×#òð) and includes the imperative äV ç ä
inferred from íéX$çp ä (Isa. :). The form íéX$çp ä should have been
attributed to the symbol ä á à which describes first guttural niph#al verbs
with a segol under the prefix nun (e.g. past ã î"çð, active participle ã î"çð;
past Öð#àð, active participle Öð#àð). The attribution of íéX$çp ä to _U a is best
explained by the Babylonian substitution of a segol by a patah. which
would have led to the vocalization íéX#çp ä instead of íéX$çp ä and hence
to the past form äT#çð.
112 See Gesenius (paradigm G). To the best of my knowledge the only attested form is
ø áð (Sam.:, Ps. :).
113 Yeivin (:, ); compare Yeivin (:) on the vocalization of some
strong niph#al participles with a patah. in the ultima.
114 See Yeivin (:–).
chapter six
Apart from the above elements of vocalization which are clearly attrib-
utable to the author, manuscripts of Kitāb al-#Uqūd present a number of
other cases of Babylonian vocalism.
. In FEA I (copy )115 f.sg. participles of all middle weak and gem-
inated niph#al verbs are vocalized with a qamas. on the prefix nun instead
of a shewa: äðÇëð fol. r, ä w îð fol. v, ä ëeáð fol. v, ä ÖÇáð fol. r.116 Such
lack of vowel reduction is found in f.sg. and m.pl. participles of mid-
dle weak niph#al verbs in manuscripts reflecting Babylonian pronuncia-
tion.117
. In the vast majority of niph#al verbs the future prefix aleph is vocalized
in copies and with a hireq, 118 e.g.:
.
– FEA I (copy ): òÇp!à fol. v, ÖLe!à fol. r, äð a!à fol. v;
– FEA I (copy ): è ì n!à fol. v;
– FEA I (copy ): òð k!à fol. r.
In the Tiberian reading tradition !à alternates with à in this position,
both vocalizations being equally frequent.119 On the contrary, in the
Babylonian tradition !à is the only possible form of the prefix.120 The
absolute prevalence of !à in copies and points in the direction of
Babylonian influence. It must, however, be noted that in the manuscripts
the sg. future prefix on pa#al and hitpa#el verbs is invariably vocalized
à in the Tiberian way whereas in the Babylonian tradition only !à is
admissible.121
. Some forms with pronominal suffixes given in Kitāb al-#Uqūd exhibit
Babylonian type vocalization, e.g. í ë"ëU á"î (FEA I , fol. v; FEA I
not preserved), ^Y aA"î (FEA I , fol. r; FEA I ,
115 In other copies this material did not survive.
116 ä ëeáð and ä ÖÇáð are
hypothetical.
117 Yeivin (:).
118 In other copies this material did not survive. Such vocalization extends also to
hitpa#el verbs with full assimilation of the prefix taw which were construed in Kitāb al-
#Uqūd as infi#āl, e.g. ø ä h!à (FEA I , fol. v; FEA I , fol. v), ø t k!à (FEA I ,
fol. v), ïðÇk!à (FEA I , fol. r) but ïðÇk à (FEA I , fol. r), ä kf à (FEA I ,
fol. v).
119 Gesenius (§); Joüon-Muraoka (§b).
120 Yeivin (:).
121 Yeivin (:).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
fol. v) with the substitution of the expected segol (í ë"ëW á"î, ^Y aA"î) by a
patah. 122
.
To conclude, Kitāb al-#Uqūd presents a number of instances of Babylo-
nian type vocalization. Most elements of the Babylonian vocalization are
systematic and some can be proven to have originated with the author.
On the basis of this evidence it can be conjectured that all instances of
the Babylonian vocalism detected in the manuscripts are authorial.
It was the norm in Hebrew linguistics to base grammatical works on
the Tiberian vocalization so that the above-mentioned authorial Baby-
lonisms in Kitāb al-#Uqūd must be unconscious slips originating in the
native substrate pronunciation of the author. Babylonisms are perhaps
not surprising in a Karaite text composed in Jerusalem. Considering that
the Karaite community of Jerusalem originated with immigrants from
Persia and Iraq123 and the Persian language was still spoken in this city in
the end of the th century,124 it is not unlikely that elements of the Baby-
lonian pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew were preserved in the commu-
nity.
Traces of the Babylonian substrate are also found in other Karaite
grammars. As mentioned above in all grammatical works using the sys-
tem of symbols m.sg. past forms of pi#el, hitpa#el and related binyanim
are vocalized with a patah. in the ultima. In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the gemi-
nated imperative ø ô ä and the past form ø ô ä are vocalized with a patah.
in the final syllable and attributed to the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the
symbol à á ä.125 The past ø ô ä is taken from the verse ø ô ä é!úéX"a ú àå (Gen.
:) where the form is pausal. However, in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn ascertained that verbs in this conjugational pattern do not
change their form in pause.126 This means that the vocalization ø ô ä with
a patah. was understood by him as context as well as pausal. Inasmuch
as á Ö ä is the only conjugational pattern to include geminated verbs in
hiph#il one can conclude that patah. rather than s. ere was regarded as the
primary vowel of such verbs which corresponds to the Babylonian tradi-
tion of pronunciation.127 An additional piece of evidence pointing in the
122 On the standard Tiberian vocalization of pi#el future and participle forms with
pronominal suffixes, see Gesenius (§§f., h); Joüon-Muraoka (§d, esp. p. ).
123 Mann (:).
124 Khan (a:).
125 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
126 äúðé àî øéàñ éìà áùé äìá÷úñîå áùä äéö ® ® ®
àîå áùä äøîà àî åäå àäðî úìàúìà óéøöúìàå
®
ìöôðîìà ïéáå äéô éðòîìà ìöúî ïéá ÷øô øäèé àì äôéøöú éô äéìà [FEA I , fol. r].
127 See Yeivin (:–).
chapter six
direction of the Babylonian pronunciation amidst Karaite grammarians
is found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd itself in the discussion of the correct impera-
tive base of the form éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :). The author reports that somebody
claimed that the initial yod in éð"ú î$çé was vocalized with a patah. 128 The
.
discrepancy between this claim and the attested vocalization of the form
is explainable only as the Babylonian substitution of a segol by a patah. .
... Final Aleph Verbs
With the exception of final aleph verbs in pa#al described in the conju-
gational pattern àTO in the symbol úT"t, final aleph verbs are patterned
together with final strong and exhibit final strong vocalization. The data
are as follows:
. The imperatives à tU and à n è are attributed to the pattern ø a c in
the symbol épb. The past form of ø a c is vocalized ø a!c with a patah. in
the final syllable. As verbs in a conjugational pattern are expected to
be structurally identical in all their forms, such attribution implies that
the author vocalized m.sg. past forms of these imperatives à tX and à n!è
with a patah.
.
. The imperatives à ì t!ä (conjugational pattern è ì n!ä), à ap!ä (conjuga-
tional pattern ø t k!ä), and àVS (conjugational pattern ïðÇk) are attributed
to the symbol á ñ î. It follows from the definition of this symbol that the
past forms of these imperatives are to be vocalized with a patah: . à ì"ôð,
à ap!ä and àUS. The author explicitly states in the introduction to the chap-
ter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their
last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other
related matters’ that all imperatives with three stable consonants included
in this chapter have past forms in a final patah. . Past forms with a qamas.
are reserved for imperatives ending in a final heh:129
® ® ® ®
ìîòúñî àäöòá åà äééìöà àäìë ïåëú ïà àù óåøç äúìú óéøöúìà éô úáú àîìë
® ® ®
øéâ à ä øîàìà øëà éô úáú àî ìëå ®äçúàôá óéøöúìà êìã øáò ïàë óãàøúîå
®äöîà÷á äðî øáòìà éìöà
128 ãåéìà äçåúôî éäô ìà÷ ïàô [FEA I , fol. r].
129 Along the same lines, the author of Me"or #Ayin states that the symbol ä@ ò based
on the final vowels of the imperative and the past contains final heh verbs but does not
mention final aleph verbs in this context (see Zislin (:)). D. Becker (:)
listed this as one of the problematic aspects of the system.
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
Each conjugation with three stable letters, be all of them root letters, or
some of them auxiliary or geminated, has a past form ending in a patah. .
Whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the past form ends in a
qamas. . [FEA I , fol. r]
At present I cannot suggest a feasible explanation for these findings, since
lack of vowel lengthening in final aleph verbs is not a feature of any
known reading tradition of Hebrew. However, one could perhaps point
out a parallel with Aramaic. In the Aramaic dialect of Targum Onqelos
final aleph verbs merged with final weak and the group normally follows
the final weak paradigm. Yet, in some fragments of Targum Onqelos
with supralinear Babylonian vocalization preserved in the Cairo Genizah
one finds special forms of the passive and reflexive stems which are
spelled with a final aleph and vocalized with a patah. on the second
radical.130
... First Nun, First Yod (Original First Waw) and Similar
Verbs in Pa#al (‘Imperatives Which Do not Have a Past Form’)
According to Kitāb al-#Uqūd first nun, first yod and similar pa#al imper-
atives, i.e. monosyllabic imperatives such as çK, ò c, ò ñ, do not have past
forms.131 The author conjectured that the past of such imperatives might
have existed in the speech of the people of the language but was not
recorded in the Scripture. To prove that none of the registered patterns
of the past form have an imperative of the type of çK, he considered two
possible forms, namely çK ì and çJ. He argued that the past cannot be
çK ì because Hebrew has a rule that if an imperative begins in a root let-
ter or an auxiliary letter, the past form will begin in the same letter.132
This is demonstrated by such pairs as imperative ä lb–past ä lb, impera-
tive áeÖ–past á Ö but also by hypothetical pairs with an auxiliary first con-
sonant such as imperative çK"ì–past çK ì, imperative ò ñð–past ò ñð. The
past cannot be çJ either, since the imperative of çJ would be çe÷, as in
imperative òeð–past òð, imperative íe÷–past íJ. Having dismissed both
alternatives as unacceptable, the author claimed that a past form and,
as a result, a symbol cannot be established for çK and similar impera-
tives.
130 See Dodi (:, ). See also Dalman (:); Sperber (:I, , to Lev.
:); Stevenson (:–).
131 FEA I , fol. r, v–r.
132 See Rule in ..
chapter six
The author warned against attributing imperatives å ö attested in Lev.
:, passim and åK, ì k, ñ k, presumably inferred from åKéå (Isa. :, ), ì ëéå
(Gen. :), ñ ëéå (Ex. :, passim) respectively, to the same category.
He argued that their future prefixes are vocalized with a shewa, whereas
future prefixes of ‘imperatives which have no past’ can have either a hireq .
with a dagesh, e.g. ç wé, or a s. ere, e.g. òAé. He concluded that the original
forms of å ö, åK, ì k, ñ k were äe ö, äeK, ä l k and ä q k and the final heh was
elided from them.
... Forms of Pronominal Suffixes133
Pronominal suffixes registered in Kitāb al-#Uqūd agree with suffix forms
attested in the Bible134 with a few exceptions. Most significantly, Kitāb al-
#Uqūd employs suffix forms ï ë (f.pl.) and ï (f.pl.) which do not occur
in the Biblical text.135 Examples of ï ë include past forms136 ï ë"áé!Ö"ä, ï ëeøæ,
ï ëé!úé!k!ä, ï ëO"Ö!ä, ï ë"úK"Ö!ä (the last two forms are found in the conjugational
pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ï ë"z"ìb"ìb, ï ëeî"îÇø, ï ëé!z"î îÇø; future forms
ï ë"áé!Ö"à, ï ë"áé!Öé, ï ë"áé!Öð, ï ëYæð, ï ë"k à, ï ëe ö"à, ï ëO"Ö à, ï ë"ìb"ìâ"à, ï ë"îé!×"à, ï ë"î!îÇø"à,
ï ë"×ÇÖ"à (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), ï ë"áé!èé à. Examples
of ï include imperatives ïVæ, ï k ä, ïe ö, ïV"a c, ï î"îÇø; future forms ïVæ"z, ï k à,
ïe ö"à, ïL"Ö à (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ï î"îÇø"à, ï ×ÇÖ"à
(conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò). These suffixes also feature
in other Karaite grammatical works, e.g. past ï ë#ò î"Ö and future ï ò î"Ö à in
the treatise on the Hebrew verbs,137 past ï ë"î îÇø in Me"or #Ayin,138 and
future forms ï ëY î"Öé, ï ëeø"î"Öé in a Genizah fragment T-S AS ..
The suffix for the f.pl. is found on the future and imperative forms
not only in the unattested form ï but also in the form ï characteristic
of past and nominal forms. Examples of forms with ï were given above.
Forms with ï include imperatives ï ëé!ì"Ö ä, ï ìb"ìb, ï îé!×; future forms ï áé!Ö"à,
133 Phenomena described below are attested in all examined manuscripts which pre-
serve sections on forms with object suffixes. The forms quoted here are taken from FEA I
. Cases of alternative vocalization in other copies of Kitāb al-#Uqūd are noted in
footnotes.
134 See Gesenius (§§–); Joüon-Muraoka (§§–).
135 See Diehl (:, ).
136 Here and in the following all forms are of sample verbs and can be found in
respective conjugational patterns. Where object suffixes are added to a verb other than
the sample verb, the conjugational pattern will be specified in brackets.
137 See Khan (b:–). More examples can be found on pp. , , –, –
, –, –, .
138 See Zislin (:).
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
ï áé!Öé, ï áé!Öð, ïTæé, ïT"aA"à, ï ëé!ì"Ö à, ï áé!èé à.139
Sometimes, forms with ï and
ï are quoted as alternatives, e.g. ïVæð and ïTæð; ï î"îÇø"à and ï î"îÇø"à. On the
contrary the m.pl. suffix is í in all but one case í áé!èé ä, presumably by
analogy with ï áé!èé ä. The treatise on the Hebrew verbs invariably uses the
hypothetical form ï . In Me"or #Ayin a pair of imperative forms í î"îÇø vs.
ï î"îÇø could be found with the attested but deviant ï .140 An explanation
for the use of ï on future and imperative forms might be that in the Bible
only the m.pl. form í but not the f.pl. form ï is attested after future and
imperative verbs. After past verbs and nouns, on the other hand, both the
m.pl. form í and the f.pl. form ï are attested. Vocalizers of Kitāb al-
#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin apparently felt uncomfortable using the unattested
form ï and so sometimes substituted the attested ï , although it is only
used in the Bible on past and nominal forms.
A similar phenomenon can be observed regarding the f.sg. suffix after
future and imperative forms. In the Bible the more widespread form of
the f.sg. suffix used with future forms is ä . The form d usual with past
and nominal forms also occurs but is rare.141 In Kitāb al-#Uqūd a reverse
tendency is observed in that forms with the f.sg. suffix d ( occur-
rences) outnumber those with ä ( occurrences). Inflected forms with
the suffix ä include imperatives äWæ, ä k ä, äe ö, äW"ô Ö (conjugational pat-
tern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), ä î"îÇø, ä ×ÇÖ (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in
the symbol ä@ ò); future forms äWæ"z, ä k à, äe ö"à, äM"Ö à (conjugational pat-
tern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ä î"îÇø"à. Inflected forms with the suffix d 142
are imperatives dT"a c, d ëé!ì"Ö ä, d ìb"ìb, d îé!×, d áé!èé ä; futures d áé!Ö"à, d áé!Öé,
d áé!Öð, dTæé, dTæð, dT"aA"à, d ëé!ì"Ö à, dT"ô Ö"à (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in
the symbol épb), d ìb"ìâ"à, d îé!×"à, d áé!èé à. The use of past and nominal suf-
fix forms d and ï on future and imperative forms corresponds well to
the leveling of suffix paradigms on verbs and nouns characteristic of the
epistolary Hebrew of the period.143
A number of times a m.sg. suffix with nun energicum is used:144 ep áé!Ö"à
and ep áé!Öé, epM"Ö à (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ep ÖÇã"à
(conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk) and ep îé!×"à. In all cases the
139
T-S Ar . (copy ), fol. r has ï áé!èé à.
140
See Zislin (:).
141 Gesenius (§d); Joüon-Muraoka (§a); Petri (:–).
142 In the originals the mappiq in the heh is not always marked, or marked under the
heh instead of inside it.
143 See Outhwaite (:).
144 The dagesh in the nun of the suffix is not always marked.
chapter six
same or a nearly identical verb form is attested in the Bible. Thus, we
find ep áé!Ö#à (Gen. :, passim), ep áé!Öé (Job :, :, :); äpM"Ö à (Isa.
:) and epM"Öð (Gen. :); ep îé!×#à (Gen. :, ; Micah :); ÖÇã à
ep Öeãé (Isa. :).145 The fact that suffixes with nun energicum were used
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd only with (some) verbs where they are attested in the
Bible correlates with the lack of creative usage of such suffix forms in
Genizah letters of the period.146
In the Bible participles and infinitives can take both nominal and ver-
bal object suffixes, nominal suffix forms being more widely used.147 In
Kitāb al-#Uqūd infinitives and participles are in most cases combined
with nominal suffixes although verbal suffixes also occur. The sg. verbal
suffix éð is used on the infinitive éð úÇe ö and on the active participle m.sg.
éð ×ÇÖ"î which was corrected in the manuscript to é!×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pat-
tern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò). In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs éðV"ô Ö"î
and éð ×ÇÖ"î are quoted.148 In the m.sg. the verbal suffix eä is mainly used
on active participles m.sg. of final heh verbs, e.g. eä k î, eäV"ô Ö"î (conjuga-
tional pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), eä ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ
in the symbol ä@ ò), whereas active participles m.sg. of other verbs take
the nominal suffix Ç, e.g. Çî"îÇø"î, Çáé!èé î. However, we find a final strong
participle with eä , namely eä ëé!ì"Ö î, and a final weak participle with
the suffix Ç, i.e. Ç÷"Ö î (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb). In the
f.sg. the verbal form ä is used only once on a final weak active participle
m.sg. ä k î; in the rest of the cases the nominal suffix form d is attached to
infinitives and participle forms, including active participles m.sg. of final
weak verbs, e.g. d áé!Ö"î, d úTæ"î, dT"ô Ö"î (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the
symbol épb), d ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), d úÇe ö.
In pl. verbal suffixes occur on three forms, namely ï k î, í ×ÇÖ"î (conju-
gational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò) and í áé!èé î.149 In all other cases
nominal pl. suffixes are used, e.g. íT"aA"î, ï ëé!ì"Ö î, ï ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational
pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), ï áé!èé î.
145 The link between ep ÖÇã"à and ep Öeãé ÖÇã à must be as follows. The form ÖÇã à, which
today is analyzed as a corrupt inf. abs. (Gesenius (§w, f.n. )), was construed in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd as sg. future (FEA I , fol. v) of the imperative ÖÇc attributed to the
conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk. Then ep Öeãé was taken as the base of analogy
for ep ÖÇã"à whereby the vowel of the first radical was changed from shuruq to holam
. to fit
the characteristic vowel of the conjugational pattern á&ñ.
146 See Outhwaite (:).
147 See Gesenius (§a, h); Joüon-Muraoka (§–).
148 See Khan (b:, ).
149 T-S Ar . (copy ), fol. v has í áé!èé î.
morphological theories in kitāb al-#uqūd
In the sg. the ambiguity of the infinitive regarding voice is resolved
by suggesting that the object suffix is éð and the subject suffix is é! :150
® ® ®
å÷ë ãåéìàå ïåðìà äøéîö ïàë àìåòôî øãöîìàá íìëúîìà ïàë àãà ïà íìòàå
® ®
àìòàô øãöîìàá íìëúîìà ïàë àãàå ®êìã äàáùàå 151éð á!Ö ä"ì éð úé!î ä"ì éðøéëäì
® ®
éöç úà éçìùá ®êéúåöî ìë ìà éèéáäá éìå÷ éîéøäë å÷ë è÷ô ãåéìà äøéîö ïàë
®
:êìã äàáùàå íåìùá éáåùá ®êì éøôëá ®áòøä
Take note that if the person uttering the infinitive is a patient, the suffix
[denoting] him is the nun and yod, e.g. éðVé!k ä"ì (Ruth :), éð úé!î ä"ì (Sam.
:, passim), éð áé!Ö#ä (Jer. :, Job :) and similar cases. If the person
uttering the infinitive is an agent, the suffix [denoting] him is the yod only,
e.g. é!ìÇ÷ é!îéX#ä k (Gen. :), ^é úÇ"ö!î ì k ì à é!èé!a ä"a (Ps. :), é v!ç ú à é!ç"l Ö"a
á òT ä (Ezek. :), _ ì éX"t ë"a (Ezek. :), íÇì Ö"á é!áeÖ"a (Judg. :, passim)
and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
150 Ibn Janah. was of the same opinion (see Derenbourg :, –).
151 éð á!Ö ä"ì
is not attested, read éð áé!Ö#ä.
chapter seven
RULES OF DERIVATIONAL RELATIONS
.. Definition and Terminology
Kitāb al-#Uqūd contains a series of statements describing general condi-
tional relations between different verb forms. For example,
®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full
vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere,
the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without
exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
These statements, which are found throughout the book, are referred to
in Judaeo-Arabic as #uqūd lā tanhall,
. literally ‘knots that cannot be untied’
(sg. #aqd lā yanhall,
. once #aqd lā yanhall
. wa- jumla lā tatafas. s. al). The word
#aqd has the meaning ‘knot; arch’ but in the technical sense it should prob-
ably be translated ‘link, connection, conditional relation, implicational
rule,’ and #uqūd lā tanhall
. as ‘inseparable links, rules without exceptions.’
To the best of my knowledge this term is not attested in any other gram-
matical work, Karaite, Rabbanite or Arabic. A Hebrew term qešer (liter-
ally, ‘knot’), pl. qišronim1 is used in Me"or #Ayin for conditional relations
between grammatical forms similar to #uqūd.2 Considering that Kitāb al-
#Uqūd is one of the main sources of Me"or #Ayin, qešer here is in all prob-
ability a translation of #aqd.
1 The plural form qišronim is peculiar. Indeed, the regular plural form of qešer is
qešarim. The form qišronim could have been derived from the singular qiššaron which
according to J. Klatzkin (–:III, ) is used in Karaite texts synonymously with
qešer to denote ‘connection, interrelation.’
2 Zislin (:–). For M. Zislin’s interpretation of qešer as ‘relationship be-
tween grammatical forms’ see ibid., –.
chapter seven
.. Corpus of Rules
Kitāb al-#Uqūd contains eighteen implicational rules of derivational rela-
tions. Sixteen of them connect verb forms with their imperative bases,
two more describe regularities in participle forms. Below is the corpus of
rules which I collected from the entire text of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
Rule
®
®äéô èáö àì áëàøìàô áëàøå éðáî ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðú ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç ïà íìòàå
®
àì óéøöú éô ïåëé øëàìàå ®éãòúî óéøöú éô ïåëé ãçàåìà ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðé éðáîìàå
® ® ®
äçúàôìà êåìî äòáøà ïò äè÷ð âøëé àì éãòúîìà óéøöú éô éãìà àîàô ®àãòúé
®
ìàá÷úñà óøç éàô ä î î&ù ä êåìî àäèàáøå äöîà÷ìàå ïéúðúìàå ÷åô ïî äè÷ðìàå
® ® ®
®êìã èôçàô äè÷ð äè÷ðå à ä äøîà éô ïà íìòà äòáøàìà äãä éãçà äè÷ð ïàë
®
®ïéôøç ïò äøîà ãàæ àîéô ã÷òìà àãäå
Take note that future prefixes can be divided into two groups, i.e. built-in
and affixed. The affixed prefixes can not be grasped [in a rule]. The built-
in prefixes, however, are of two types. The first type occurs in transitive
paradigms and the second type occurs in intransitive paradigms. As to the
prefixes in transitive paradigms, their vocalization is limited to four vowels,
i.e. a patah,
. a holam,
. a s. ere, and a qamas. , their mnemonic sign being the
vowels of ä î î&g ä. Take note that if the vowel of the future prefix is one of
these four, the corresponding imperative begins in a heh vocalized with the
same vowel. Learn it! This rule holds for verbs with imperatives of more
than two letters. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule (this rule is a continuation of Rule and as such deals with built-
in future prefixes only)
® ®
ïéúè÷ð àîà äè÷ð ïåëé éãòúé àì éãìà óéøöúìà éô ïåëé éãìà ìàá÷úñàìà óøçå
àäá øîàìà ïàë äè÷ð äúçú ïàë àîô éðé á êåìî àîäèàáøå ìôñà ïî äè÷ð àîàå
äéãòúìà øéâå äéãòúìàá äøáúòú ïéúè÷ð äúçú ïàë àîå ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá øáòìàå
éãòúî øéâ ïàë ïàå ®íàîá ìòàôìàå à äá øáòìàå àäá øîàìà ïàë éãòúî ïàë ïàô
®
:ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá øáòìàå à äá øîàìà ïàë
The vowel of a future prefix in an intransitive paradigm can be either a
s. ere or a hireq,
. the mnemonic sign being the vowels of éðé a. Those verbs
that have a hireq
. have an imperative in a heh, a past form in a nun, and an
active participle in a nun. For verbs that have a s. ere take into consideration
whether they are transitive or intransitive. If the verb is transitive, it will
have an imperative in a heh, a past form in a heh, and an active participle
in a mem. If it is intransitive, it will have an imperative in a heh, a past form
in a nun, and an active participle in a nun. This is a rule that is not broken.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
rules of derivational relations
Rule
®
äìòàô éô àâå àåù àì êìî äè÷ð ïåëéå àéìöà àôøç äôåøç ìåà ïåëé øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ®
àîàå ºãçàåìà ìòàôìà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø àìà íéîìà êìã ïåëé àì íéî
®äéðáî àãáà íäîéîô ïéìòàôìà
Take note that whenever an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized
with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the active participle derived from
it begins in a mem, this mem is affixed. This is a rule without exceptions
for the active participle m.sg. As to the active participle m.pl., the mem in
it is always built-in. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule
® ® ®
àãäå úðåîìàå øëãîìì íéáøìàå ãéçéìà éô àãáà éðáî ìåòôî ìë íéî ïà íìòàå
ìçðé àì ã÷ò
Take note that the mem of the passive participle is always built-in in the
singular, plural, masculine and feminine. This is a rule without exceptions.
[FEA I , fol. v]
Rules , ,
® ® ®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
àãä éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ
® ® ® ® ®
øéâ à ä óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà
® ® ®
äøëà øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà
® ® ®
éìò äìàìãìàå ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä
® ® ® ® ® ®
äëåìî øëàå à ä äøëà äVæ øîàìà ïà åä òöåîìà àãä éô ãå÷òìà äãä ïî úøëã àî
®
éô äöîà÷ éìà øîàìà éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà úáì÷ðà óéë øèðà äTæ øáòìàå ®ïéúè÷ð
® ® ®
ä ìâ!ä ä ìâ ä ä ú"ìâ ä lâ ä lâ êìãëå å úìàá ä úYæ äúðåîìà øáòå ®ãéçéìì éãìà øáòìà
® ®
êìã ìàúîàå ä ú"ìâ!ä
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root
heh is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov.
:) and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions
regarding this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such
imperatives ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the
m.sg. past verb form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form
derived from an imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw.
These are rules without exceptions. The indication regarding the rules I
have mentioned here is that the last consonant of the imperative äVæ is a
heh and its last vowel is s. ere. The past verb form is äTæ. Notice how the
s. ere in the imperative turned into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb. The f.sg.
past form ä úYæ has a taw. Similar are ä lb–ä lb–ä ú"lb, ä ìâ ä–ä ìâ!ä–ä ú"ìâ!ä, and
other examples. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
chapter seven
Rule
® ® ®
ä k ä ìúîå ìé!ö!ä ì ö ä ìúî éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
ãá àì øáòìàå øîàìà ñàø éô à äìà àãä úáú àãàå áëàø àì éðáî àäìàô ä k!ä
® ® ® ® ®
åäå äá èôçúìà áâé ã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô ®ä ë î ìé!ö î ìúî ìòàôìà éô íéîìà úåáú ïî
®
úðàë àîìå ®íàîá àãáà ìòàôìà ïàë éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë
® ®
ã÷ò åäô êìã èáöàô éðáî ìòàôìà íàî øàö øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïééðáî ïéààäìà
®
ìöôúú àì äìîâå ìçðé àì
Take note that each non-root heh which is established in the beginning
of an imperative and a past form, as in ì v ä–ìé!v!ä or ä k ä–ä k!ä, is built-in
rather than affixed. If such a heh occurs in the beginning of the imperative
and the past, a mem will necessarily occur in the active participle, e.g. ìé!v î,
ä k î. This leads to a rule which must be learned by heart, namely if the
imperative and the past form begin in a non-root heh, the active participle
will always begin in a mem. And since the heh’s in the imperative and the
past are built-in, the mem of the active participle is built-in. Learn it well
for this is a rule without exceptions and a principle that is not undone.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
Rule
®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
éøú àìà ®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà
® ®
áëàø íàîá ìòàôìà àâ ïéúè÷ð äøëà éôå êìî äè÷ðå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà ä ìâ ïà
®
®äìâî ÷ë
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full
vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere,
the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without
exceptions. Surely you can see that ä lb begins in a root letter vocalized
with a full vowel, and ends in a s. ere. Thus, its active participle begins in an
affixed mem, i.e. ä lâ"î. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule
® ® ®
éìöà øéâ à ä äìåà éô úáú øîà ìë åäå ®ìçðé àì äéìà òâøú àã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô
®
øîà _ ì"Ö ä ÷ë íéî ïî äìòàôì ãá àìå à ä ïî äøáòì ãá àì éãòúîìà äâéö äúâéöå
®
ì ö ä äìúîå íàî äìåà éô _é!ì"Ö î ìòàôìàå ®à ä äìåà éô _é!ì"Ö!ä øáòìàå ®à ä äìåà éô
® ® ®
êåìîìà éô àì óåøçìà éô èàáø ñðâìà àãäì úìòâô ®ä ìâ î ä ìâ!ä ä ìâ ä ®ìéöî ìé!ö!ä
®ìòàôìì íàîìàå øáòìàå øîàìì ïààäìà í ä ä åäå
This leads to a rule without exceptions to which you can refer, namely, if
an imperative begins in a non-root heh and has the form of a transitive
verb, the past form will necessarily begin in a heh and the active participle
will necessarily begin in a mem. For example, imperative _ ì"Ö ä begins in
a heh, the past form _é!ì"Ö!ä begins in a heh and the active participle _é!ì"Ö î
begins in a mem. Similar cases are ì v ä–ìé!v!ä–ìé!v î and ä ìâ ä–ä ìâ!ä–ä ìâ î.
rules of derivational relations
I have coined for this type a mnemonic based on the consonants, not on
the vowels, namely í ä ä, where the heh’s represent the imperative and the
past, and the mem represents the active participle. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule
® ®
ïåðá äìòàôå ïåð äì éãìà øáòìà ìåàå à ä äøîà ìåà åìòâ éãòúî øéâìà ìòôìàå
® ®
àãä ïî øàöô ®ïåð äìåà ïåëð øáòìàå ®éãòúî øéâ ñôðìà éô à ä äìåà øîà ïÇë!ä ÷ë
® ® ®
àì ñôðìà äâéö äúâéöå éìöà øéâ à ä äìåà éô øîà ìë åäå àéðàú àã÷ò éðàúìà áøöìà
® ® ®
óåøçìà éô èàáø áøöìà àãäì úìòâå ®ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá àãáà äì øáòìà éãòúìà
®
®ìòàôìì øëàìàå øáòìì ãçàåìà ïåðìàå ®øîàìì à äìà ïð"ä êåìîìà éô àì
For intransitive verbs they formed an imperative beginning in a heh, a past
beginning in a nun, and an active participle beginning in a nun. For exam-
ple, ïÇk!ä is an imperative beginning in a heh, which is for intransitivity, not
for transitivity. The past form ïÇëð begins in a nun. This second case leads to
the second rule, namely, if an imperative begins in a non-root heh and has
a form of an intransitive rather than a transitive verb, the past form always
begins in a nun and the active participle also begins in a nun. I have coined
for this type a mnemonic ïð"ä based on the consonants, not the vowels. The
heh stands for the imperative, one nun stands for the past, and the other
nun for the active participle. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule
® ® ®
øáòìà ìàòúôà å ú äéôå à ä äìåà øîà ìë ïà åäå àúìàú àã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô
® ®
øîàìì ïéààäìà ú î ä ä ñðâìà àãäì èàáøìàå íàîá äðî ìòàôìàå à äá àãáà äðî
®
_ ì ä"ú!î _ ì ä"ú!ä _ ì ä"ú!ä êìã ïî ìå÷ú ìàòúôàìì å úìàå ìòàôìì íàîìàå øáòìàå
® ® ® ® ® ®
äøéúë ìàúîà äì ãòá ïî éâéñ àîî ñðâìà àãä ïî êìã øéâ éìà
This leads to a third rule, namely, if an imperative begins in a heh and
contains the taw of ifti#āl, then the past form will always be in a heh and
the active participle in a mem. The mnemonic for this type is ú î ä ä, where
the heh’s stand for the imperative and the past, the mem is for the active
participle and the taw for the ifti#āl. An example is _ l ä"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!î
and other verbs of this kind, many instances of which will be cited later
on. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rules , (these two implicational rules pertain only to verbs in the
chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in
their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on
other related matters’)
® ® ® ®
ìîòúñî àäöòá åà äééìöà àäìë ïåëú ïà àù óåøç äúìú óéøöúìà éô úáú àîìë
® ® ®
à ä øîàìà øëà éô úáú àî ìëå ®äçúàôá óéøöúìà êìã øáò ïàë óãàøúîå
® ® ® ®
àãä óéøàöú øúëà ïéã÷òìà ïéãäá èáöðà ã÷ô ®äöîà÷á äðî øáòìà éìöà øéâ
áàáìà
chapter seven
Each conjugation with three stable letters, be all of them root letters, or
some of them auxiliary or geminated, has a past form ending in a patah. .
Whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the past form ends in a
qamas. . These two rules capture most conjugational patterns in this chapter.
[FEA I , fol. r–v]
Rule
®
äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë
® ® ®
ä ù ò ä ×#ò á Ö áeù ä ìâ ä ìâ å÷ êìã éìò ìéìãìàå ìçðé àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå
® ®
ìúîô ìîòúñî óøç äìåà ïàë àî àîàå ®éìöà óøç äìåà àîî êìã øéâ éìà ø î ù ø&î"ù
®
®êìã øéâ éìà ãUé ãUé òAé òAé ò ñð ò ñð çK ì çK"ì
Whenever an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the
past form will begin in that same letter. This is the way of the language
and a rule without exceptions. The evidence regarding this is, for example,
ä lb–ä lb, áeÖ–á Ö, ä ×#ò–ä × ò, ø&î"Ö–ø î Ö and other imperatives which begin
in a radical. Examples of imperatives beginning in an auxiliary letter are
çK"ì–çK ì, ò ñð–ò ñð, òAé–òAé, ãUé–ãUé, etc. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule
® ® ®
øëàìàå áëàø ãçàåìà ïéäâå éìò øîàìà éìò ìëãé ã÷ ìòàôìà íàî ïà íìòàå
® ® ® ® ® ®
ïàë àãàå ®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô ®éðáî
® ® ® ® ®
òîúâé àì ìòàôìà íàî ïàì à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç àãà éðáî
® ® ® ® ® ®
øîàìì éãìà à äìà äöåò úãø äúôãç àãà êìãìô øîàìà éô éãìà à äìà òî äúá
® ®
áëàøìà íàîìà åäå íã÷ú àî ïàéá ®ìöôúú àì äìîâå äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå
® ® ® ® ® ® ®
úôãç àãà äWæ"î _V á"î ÷ë à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà
®
ìë àîäéìò ñ÷å à ä äãàéæ éìà àâàúçé àì ïàì÷úñî ïàøîà äVæ _V á àé÷á íàîìà
® ® ®
àì÷úñé àì ïéîàîìà úôãç àãà ìé!ö î áé!Ö î å÷ë éðáîìà íàîìà ïàéáå ®áëàø íàî
® ® ® ®
®éøâîìà àãä éøâé éðáî íàî ìëå ì v ä á Ö ä ìå÷úô à ä äãàéæ éìà âàúçúô àîäñôðàá
Take note that the mem of the active participle can be attached to the
imperative in two ways: firstly, as an affixed [prefix] and secondly, as a built-
in [prefix]. If it is affixed and you remove it, the imperative will not need
any additions. If it is built-in and you remove it, the imperative will need an
added heh because the mem of the active participle never occurs together
with the heh of the imperative. Hence, if you remove it, substitute it with
the heh of the imperative. This is a rule without exceptions in the language
and a principle that is not undone. An explanation of the first case is that
if you elide an affixed mem, the imperative will not require the addition
of a heh, e.g. _V á"î, äWæ"î if you elide the mem, the resulting [forms] _V a,
äVæ are by themselves imperatives and do not require the addition of a heh.
Treat analogously every affixed mem. An explanation regarding the built-
in mem is that if, for example, you elide the mem from áé!Ö î, ìé!v î, [the
forms] cannot stand on their own but will require the addition of a heh, as
you say ì v ä, á Ö ä. This is the way of every built-in mem.
[FEA I , fol. r–v]
rules of derivational relations
Rule
® ® ®
êìã ïéìòàô éô íàîìà úåáú ïî ãá àì íàî äìòàô éô úáú óéøöú ìë ïà íìòàå
®
àì íàî äìòàô éô úáúé àì óéøöú ìëå ïéìåòôî äì ïàë ïà äéìåòôîå óéøöúìà
® ® ®
®äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå äúá íàî óéøöúìà êìã éô úáúé àì äéðáî àìå äáëàø
Take note that in each conjugational pattern the active participle of which
has a mem, a mem will inevitably be established on the active participle
m.pl. and the passive participles if the conjugational pattern has a passive
participle. Whenever a conjugational pattern has an active participle with-
out a mem, neither affixed, nor built-in, then the mem is not present on any
form in this pattern. This is a rule without exceptions in the language.
[FEA I , fol. v]
Rule
® ® ® ®
éô ã÷òìàå àåùá éðàúìàå ®íåîöî ãçàåìà ïéáøö éìò äè÷ð éô éâé ìåòôîìà íàîå
® ®
äì ïàë ïà ìåàìà íåîöî äìåòôî íéî ïåëé éðáî à ä äìåà éô ïåëé øîà ìë ïà åä êìã
® ®
äìåà éô ïåëé àì øîà ìëå êìã ìàúîàå ä ë%î äë ä á Öeî äìåòôî øîà á ù ä ÷ë ìåòôî
®
äìåòôîå øîà _V á äWÇæ"î ìåòôîå øîà äVæ ÷ë àåù äìåòôî ìåà è÷ð ïåëé éðáî à ä
® ®
éðáî äéô íéîìà àîî êìã ìàúîàå êTÇá"î
The mem of the passive participle can be vocalized in two ways, firstly,
with a qubbus. and secondly, with a shewa. The rule regarding it is this.
Whenever an imperative begins in a built-in heh, the initial mem of its
passive participle is vocalized with a qubbus. , if it has a passive participle.
For example, á Ö ä is an imperative and its passive participle is á Öeî, ä k ä–
ä k%î, and other similar cases. Whenever an imperative does not begin in a
built-in heh, its passive participle has a shewa in the beginning, e.g. äVæ is
an imperative and the passive participle is äWÇæ"î, _V a is an imperative and
its passive participle is _TÇá"î, and other cases where the mem is built-in.
[FEA I , fol. r]
.. The Structure of Rules of Derivational Relations
The typical formula used in a rule is:
Each verb form A (input form, antecedent) with characteristic features
so-and-so has verb form B (output form, consequent) with characteristic
features so-and-so.
A variant formula is:
Each verb form so-and-so has structural characteristics so-and-so.
As is evident from the corpus, characteristic features of antecedent and
consequent forms mentioned in the rules include the presence or absence
of formatives as well as their status and vocalization. Importantly, these
characteristic features are always well formalized.
chapter seven
Often implicational rules are proven with examples of verbs conform-
ing to the phenomenon described in a rule. Such examples can be intro-
duced with wa-l-dalāla (‘indication’), wa-l-dalı̄l (‘proof, evidence, indi-
®
cation’), alā tarā inna (‘surely, you can see’), but most often with ÷ë for
ka-qawlihi, ka-qawlika (‘for example’). At times unattested verb forms
are used to support a rule. This is found in Rule which claims that
any imperative which begins in a radical or an auxiliary letter has a past
form beginning in that same letter. To prove the rule the author used
form pairs such as imperative ä lb–past ä lb, imperative áeÖ–past á Ö for
imperatives beginning in a radical and hypothetical imperative çK"ì–past
çK ì, hypothetical imperative òAé–past òAé for imperatives beginning in
an auxiliary letter. A similar example is found in Me"or #Ayin in a rule con-
necting the form of the imperative with the form of the active participle
derived from it. The rule states that whenever an imperative has a shewa
in the initial syllable, the active participle derived from it does not con-
tain the prefix mem. To demonstrate this relationship the author used
form pairs imperative ç ú t–active participle ç úÇt, hypothetical impera-
tive ãUé–active participle ãVÇé, hypothetical imperative òAé–active partici-
ple òBÇé.3
.. Rules of Derivational Relations vs.
Other Remarks on Verbal Morphology
Implicational rules found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin have a
number of salient features in that they:
. describe conditional relations between verb forms;
. do not have exceptions;
. pertain to wide groups of verbs united by common formalizable fea-
tures.
Statements on regularities in verbal derivation which do not conform to
one or more of these criteria are not labelled as ‘rules.’ Below are some
examples:
øîà à ä ãòá àìà ïåëé àìå àåù àìà àãáà äè÷ð ïåëé àì ìàòúôàìà å ú ïà íìòàå
® ® ® ® ®
äãâú ãàù åäô àéù êìã ïò âøë ïàå ®äîìòàô ìàá÷úñà óøçå ìòàô íéîå øáò à äå
ïéùå éãöå êàîñ ãòá
3 See Zislin (:).
rules of derivational relations
Take note that the taw of ifti#āl is always vocalized with a shewa and comes
after the heh of the imperative, the heh of the past, the mem of the active
participle or the future prefix. Note this! Exceptions from this are rare and
occur after samekh, s. ade and shin. [FEA I , fol. r]
® ® ® ® ® ®
äøéúë òöàåî éô ñëòú êìã èáöé íì ïîå øëãîìà øáò ìúî äð"áð äìòàôìàå
The active participle f.sg. is äð"áð and it is the same as the m.sg. past. He who
does not grasp it will be frustrated in many cases.
[FEA I , fol. r–v]
® ® ® ®
ãçàå íäì éãìà øáòìàå íéáøìà øîà øëàåàìà óìúëîìà áàáìà óéøàöú øúëà
®äîìòàô
In most conjugations in the chapter on the verbs with different final vowels
[of the imperative and the past], the plural forms of the imperative and the
past are identical. Take note of that! [FEA I , fol. v]
In these examples verb forms and their structural features are not de-
scribed as conditioned by another verb form. Moreover, the remarks
pertain either to forms in particular conjugational patterns (as in the
example of äð"áð) or to verb groups that are not well defined (such as ‘most
conjugations in the chapter on the verbs with different final vowels [of the
imperative and the past]’). An interesting case of a statement on verbal
derivation not counted among the rules on account of the low level of its
formalization is found in Me"or #Ayin in the ‘Chapter on the explanation
®®®®
of the four letters ïúéà.’4 The statement referred to as ‘condition’ (tena"y)
is formulated as follows:
ç÷å êìùä ãéúòä úåà äéìò øùà äìî ìë àåäå 5®åéìà áåùú àåä éàðú êì äéä äæ ìòå
óéñåä åùôðá ãåîòé àì äéä íàå ®àä åéìò óéñåú àì åùôðá ãåîòé éååöä äéä íà éååöä
éååöä àä úåà ãå÷ð ãéúòä úåà ãå÷ð íéùå ãéúòä íå÷îá àä
From this follows a condition to which you can refer, namely, if a word has a
future prefix, discard it and get the imperative. If the [inferred] imperative
form can stand on its own, do not add to it a heh. If it cannot stand on its
own, add a heh instead of the future [prefix] and put the vowel of the future
prefix on the heh on the imperative. [Zislin (:)]
The algorithm for inferring imperatives described in the ‘condition’ is
very similar to that in Rule in Kitāb al-#Uqūd which deals with infer-
ring imperatives from participle forms with the prefix mem. Rule
4 See Zislin (:).
5 The introductory formula åéìà áåùú àåä éàðú êì äéä äæ ìòå is very close to ïî øàöô
® ®
ìçðé àì äéìà òâøú àã÷ò êìã found in Rule in Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
chapter seven
makes the form of the imperative dependent on a formal characteristic of
the participle prefix, namely its affixed or built-in nature. On the contrary,
in the ‘condition’ the characteristic features of the antecedent (future
forms) are not specified and the final form of the imperative is said to
depend on whether or not a form produced by removing a prefix from the
future can be used on its own. This level of formalization is not enough
for a statement to be considered a rule.
An additional reason preventing a morphological statement from be-
ing called a rule are exceptions. Consider this:
® ® ® ®
äìåòôî øëà éô à äìà úåáú ïî ãá àì éðáî à ä äøëà éô úáú øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
éô äöåò àðáé ìá äìåòôî øëà éô úáúé àì à äìà ïàô äôéøàöúå äùò àåñ àî ®®®
®ãåéå åàå ìåòôîìà
Take note that whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, its passive
participle will inevitably end in a heh … An exception is ä ×#ò and other
verbs of this conjugational pattern which does not have a heh in the end
of its passive participle. Rather a waw and yod are built into the passive
participle instead of the heh. [FEA I , fol. v]
Here a conditional relation between the imperative and the passive par-
ticiple of final heh verbs is formulated in a manner consistent with
the definition of a rule. Yet, it is not referred to as #aqd, presumably,
because it does not hold for final weak verbs in pa#al whereas a rule has
to be without exceptions.
.. Rules of Derivational
Relations and the System of Symbols
Rules of derivational relations seem to be disconnected from the system
of symbols. Belonging to a particular symbol or conjugational pattern is
never mentioned as a characteristic feature in a rule. Even when a rule
clearly refers to a particular symbol and this symbol alone, the symbol
word does not appear in the rule. Thus, Rule pertains to the symbol
á ñ î alone but does not mention the mnemonic itself. In turn, regularities
about verbs in certain homogeneous symbols are never referred to as
#uqūd, e.g.:
®
íàî àäéìòàô éô ïåëé ïà æåâé àì úT"ô óéøàöú ïà íìòàå
Take note that active participles of conjugational patterns in the symbol
úT"t do not have [prefix] mem. [FEA I , fol. v]
rules of derivational relations
® ®
®äöåî÷î àãáà àîäìàá÷úñà óåøç ì òeÖ éôéøöú ïà èáöú ïà áâéå
You have to grasp that future prefixes of conjugational patterns in the
symbol ì òeÖ are always vocalized with a qamas. . [FEA I , fol. r]
The situation is similar in Me"or #Ayin. To give examples, a statement
regarding á ñ î similar to Rule in Kitāb al-#Uqūd contains the symbol
word but is not called a rule:
øúåéå úåéúåà ùåìùî àéää äìîä øùà êøã ìëá êì äéäé ïîéñä äæå áñî ïîéñ
Symbol á ñ î. This symbol applies to all patterns in which a word has three
or more consonants. [Zislin (:)]
On the contrary, a rule exclusive to verbs in the symbol úT"t does not
mention the symbol word:
äæ ìò äéàøä ç÷úå äùåòä úòéðîå øáòä ùàøîå éååöä ùàøî äôñåúä úòéðîá øù÷
éååöä ùàøá ïéà éë òãú äöî÷ åãå÷ð úìçú åá äéäé øùà éåùò ìë ®éåùòä ãå÷ðî ïéðòä
íééåùò íä äìà éeðJ øeî ù ìeë à îë äôñåú äùåòä ùàøá ïéàå øáòä ùàøá ïéàå ®äôñåú
åùàøá ïéà ìëÇà äùåòäå ®äôñåú åùàøá ïéà ìÇë à éååöä àá ïë ìò ïéöî÷ íùàøá
®äôñåú
Rule on the preclusion of an addition from the beginning of the imperative
and from the beginning of the past and on the preclusion of the active par-
ticiple [from additions]; take the evidence about this from the vocalization
of the passive participle
If the first vowel of the passive participle is a qamas. , take note that the
imperative does not have additions in the beginning, and the past and
the active participle do not have additions in the beginning. For example,
ìeë à, øeî Ö, éeðJ are passive participles with a qamas. in the beginning, so
the imperative is ìÇë à6 without additions in the beginning and the active
participle is ì ëÇà without additions in the beginning. [Zislin (:)]
This rule deals with passive participles vocalized with a qamas. in their
initial syllable. Such passive participle forms are characteristic of pa#al
verbs which are discussed in the method of symbols within the symbol
úT"t. Hence, this rule is exclusive to úT"t and yet the mnemonic does not
appear in its text. From these and similar examples it can be inferred
that when devising rules of derivational relations the authors of Kitāb
al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin thought of them as independent from the
symbols so that symbols and rules represent two different traditions of
morphological description.
6 The expected vocalization is ì&ë$à.
chapter seven
The only element of implicational rules which connects them with
the system of symbols are examples given to prove rules. In most cases
verbs used in the examples are sample verbs of conjugational patterns for
which a particular rule is relevant. Thus, in Rules – ä lb and äVæ are both
sample verbs of homonymous conjugational patterns in the symbols é!pb
and à á ä respectively. In Rule _ ì"Ö ä, ì v ä and ä ìâ ä are sample verbs in
the symbol é!pb. In Me"or #Ayin as well sample verbs are most commonly
used to prove rules. Yet, since more examples are given than in Kitāb al-
#Uqūd other verbs also appear.
.. Rules of Derivational Relations and Binyanim
By referring to characteristic features of input forms, rules divide verbs
into groups to which they pertain. Interestingly, these groups are in most
cases closer to binyanim and gezarot than to symbols and conjugational
patterns.7 Thus, Rule starts from future forms of intransitive verbs in
which the future prefix is a built-in letter vocalized with s. ere or hireq.
.
It follows from the definition of a built-in letter that this rule refers to
niph#al verbs. Rule uses as its input imperatives beginning in a root
letter vocalized with a full vowel such that their active participles begin
in a mem. This corresponds to imperatives of pi#el verbs.8 Rule clearly
refers to hitpa#el verbs. The antecedent of Rules – are imperatives
ending in a non-root heh. This singles out imperatives of third weak
verbs. The situation is similar in Me"or #Ayin where the division of the
rules into three chapters9 on () verb forms derived from imperatives
without prefixes (roughly, pa#al and pi#el verbs); () verbs belonging to
mnemonics í ä ä and ú î ä ä (hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs); and () verbs in the
mnemonic ïð"ä (niph#al verbs) is the best demonstration of this point. This
fact is noteworthy because it shows that although Karaite grammarians
did not operate with the notions of binyanim and gezarot they were
aware that Hebrew verbs can be divided into large categories much more
general than the conjugational patterns.
7 Rules pertain to verbs of attested as well as hypothetical morphological patterns
so that it would not be accurate to state that verb groups produced by rules correspond
exactly to binyanim and gezarot.
8 This rule also works for some hypothetical imperatives which cannot be attributed
to any binyan.
9 See ..
rules of derivational relations
.. Function of Rules of Derivational Relations
The importance attached by our author to the rules of derivational rela-
tions follows clearly from the fact that he entitled his work Kitāb al-#Uqūd
fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya (Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical
Inflections of the Hebrew Language). Rules have two functions in the sys-
tem of the author: a morphological and a pedagogical. Here the morpho-
logical function of rules will be considered. For the pedagogical function
of rules see ..
Rules of derivational relations play a role in the author’s reconstruction
of paradigms of poorly attested verbs. The author admitted having had
recourse to rules for this purpose in two cases.
. In the discussion on ‘imperatives which do not have a past form’ the
author considered the possibility that the past forms of imperatives ò ñ
and çK are ò ñð and çK ì respectively. He refuted this option on the basis
of Rule which claims that any imperative which begins in a radical or
an auxiliary letter has a past form beginning on that same letter:
åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë ïà äì ìé÷ ®ç÷ì çK øáòå ò ñð ò ñ øáò ïà ìà÷ ïàô
® ®
àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî
ìçðé
If somebody says that the past of ò ñ is ò ñð and the past of çK is çK ì, it
should be said to him that whenever an imperative begins in a root letter
or an auxiliary letter, the past form will begin in that same letter. This is
the way of the language and a rule without exceptions.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
. In the conjugational pattern ïðÇk!ä in the symbol á ñ î the author tried
to decide on the correct prefix for the past form of the imperative ïðÇk!ä
inferred from éððÇk!z äJ@"ö!a (Isa. :). Admitting that ‘neither its past
form nor its active participle are attested nor is there a verb by anal-
ogy with which it could be conjugated; nor is it handed down by oral
tradition, as it is rarely used’10 the author had to resort to regularities
in the language to determine whether the past begins in a heh or in a
nun. He preferred the form with a nun, ‘because it is the way of the lan-
guage that an intransitive infi#āl imperative beginning in a built-in heh
® ® ® ® ®
10 ìéì÷ äðàì àòàîñ ãëåé àîî åä àìå äñé÷ð àãàî éìòô ãåâåî ìòàôìà àìå ãåâåî øáòìà ñéì
ìàîòúñàìà [FEA I , fol. r].
chapter seven
has the past form and the active participle beginning in a nun.’11 This
statement is a paraphrase of Rule .
In other cases a comparison of restored forms with rules of deriva-
tional relations shows that hypothetical verb forms comply with the rules
yet there is no proof that the author actually used the rules to create
them. One example will demonstrate this point. Active participle forms
of hypothetical final heh imperatives ä ë"Ö î and äV(à z have the prefix "î, i.e.
ä ë"Ö î"î, äW(à ú"î. This choice of the active participle form agrees with Rule
which determines that imperatives which begin in a root letter vocal-
ized with a full vowel have active participles in an affixed mem. Clearly,
imperatives ä ë"Ö î and äV(à z meet all the conditions stipulated in the rule.
Hence, their active participles must begin in an affixed mem. The vocal-
ization of an affixed mem is always a shewa:
àåù äè÷ðô áëàø äðî ïàë àîô ïéîñ÷ éìà äè÷ð éô íñ÷ðé ìòàôìà íéî ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
êìã ìúàî àîå êV á"î ø áA"î ìúî
Take note that the mem of the active participle is vocalized in two ways.
An affixed mem is vocalized with a shewa, as in ø aA"î, _V á"î, and similar
cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
This leads to the above-mentioned active participle forms ä ë"Ö î"î, äW(à ú"î.
.. Relationship between the
Material in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin
In Me"or #Ayin rules are not dispersed in the text of the book but are
collected together and organized in three chapters. The first chapter
entitled ‘Chapter on the rules with which you can link many doubtful
cases’ contains rules on the presence and vocalization of afformatives
in verbs of various types but especially in verb forms derived from
imperatives without prefixes.12 The second chapter entitled ‘The speech
on the chapter on rules’ deals with verbs belonging to mnemonics í ä ä
and ú î ä ä (hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs).13 In the third chapter, namely
‘Chapter on the rules in the mnemonic ïÇð"ä,’ rules are formulated which
concern niph#al verbs.14 Whereas in Kitāb al-#Uqūd the antecedent of
11 äì øáòìà éðáî à ä äìåà éô ìàòôðàìà óéøàöú ïî ñôðìà éô øîà ïàë àã ®
à äâììà äøéñ ïàì
r
ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá [FEA I , fol. ]. On the classification of ïðÇk!ä as infi#āl see ...
12 ìôè à ä éååöä ùàøá ïéà, äôñåú éååöä ùàøá ïéà [Zislin (:–)].
13 Zislin (:–).
14 Zislin (:).
rules of derivational relations
most implicational rules is the imperative, in Me"or #Ayin this is true only
of half of the rules, the other half having the imperative as a consequent
and other derivative forms as antecedents (a few rules do not refer to the
imperative at all).
The structure of an implicational rule in Me"or #Ayin is as follows.15
Each rule is introduced with a heading specifying forms or afformatives
discussed in a rule and often mentioning the antecedents of the condi-
tional relation as well as its consequents. Examples include ‘rule on the
letter heh,’16 ‘rule on knowing the vocalization of future prefixes, infer
it from the vocalization of the heh of the imperative,’17 ‘rule on the pres-
ence of a heh in the beginning of the imperative, a heh in the beginning of
the past and a mem in the beginning of the active participle, take evidence
about it from the vocalization of future prefixes.’18 In the body of a rule
characteristic features of an antecedent form are linked through a regu-
lar conditional relation to characteristic features of a consequent form in
a formula which resembles that of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.19 Most rules are fol-
lowed by supporting examples. The examples are introduced with kemo
(‘like, as in’) and once with we-ha-re"ayah (‘proof, evidence’) although the
term re"ayah is mainly used to introduce antecedents in rule headings. An
example of a complete rule in Me"or #Ayin is:
®øáòä ùàø ãå÷ðî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä íî ãå÷ð ìò øù÷
ãå÷ð äéäé úåãå÷ð éúù à ä úåà úçú äéäéå ø÷ò åððéà à ä åùàøá äéä øáò ìë éë òã
® ®
ïë úåãå÷ð éúù àä úåà ãå÷ðå øáò àåä íé÷ä îë úåã÷ðá øáòä ãå÷ð îë äùåòä í î
®
äùåòä àá åãå÷ð úåãå÷ð á àä úåà øáò ïé!ë ä ïëå íé÷ î úåãå÷ð éúù äùåòä íî ãå÷ð àá
íúåîãå úåã÷ð éúù íî úåà ãå÷ð ïé!ë î
15 Rules of derivational relations in Me"or #Ayin were but briefly described in previous
studies. M.N. Zislin (:–) summarized a small number of rules and pointed out
that when formulating rules the author did not mention verbal stems. He concluded that
the notion of a verbal stem was not known to the author. A. Maman (:) limited
his description to a definition of qišronim as ‘inner-morphological relations restrained by
one another’ (äìàá äìà íéðúåîä íééîéðô íééâåìåôøî íéøù÷).
16 àä úåà øù÷ [Zislin (:)].
17 éååöä àä ãå÷ðî åúåà ç÷ú ãéúòä úåéúåà ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ [Zislin (:)].
18 úåéúåà ãå÷ðî äæ ìò äéàøä ç÷ú íî äùåòä ùàøáå à ä øáòä ùàøáå àä éååöä ùàøá úåéäì øù÷
ãéúòä [Zislin (:)].
19 One rule namely ‘rule on the vocalization of affixed future prefixes’ (ãéúòä úåàá øù÷
åãå÷ð äéäé éî áëåø äéäé íà [Zislin (:–)]) is peculiar. The first part of the rule dis-
cussing future prefixes of bi-consonant imperatives does not follow the usual formula of
a rule in that it states that future prefixes of such imperatives can take three different vow-
els, qamas. , s. ere or hireq,
. but does not specify characteristic features of imperative forms
which would enable one to decide which vowel to choose. Indeed, such characteristics
are very difficult to define within the framework of verbal roots of variable length.
chapter seven
Rule on the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active participle; take
the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of the past
Take note that if a past form begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a s. ere,
the vowel of the mem of the active participle will be like the vowel of the
past a s. ere. For example, íéN ä is a past form and the heh is vocalized with
a s. ere and so the vocalization of the mem of the active participle is a s. ere
íéN î. Similarly ïé!ë ä is a past form and the heh has a s. ere, and the active
participle is ïé!ë î where the mem is vocalized with a s. ere, etc.
[Zislin (:)]
Most rules given in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are found in Me"or #Ayin. Out of the
eighteen rules in Kitāb al-#Uqūd only four do not have correlates. These
are Rules , –, . Rules – correspond to statements in Me"or
#Ayin not referred to as rules.20
Some rules in Me"or #Ayin are directly translated from Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
Compare these:
Kitāb al-#Uqūd (Rule )
®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ® ®
®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full
vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere,
the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without
exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
Me"or #Ayin
éååöá øùà ïåùàøä úåàäî äúåà ç÷ú åéìò äéàøä ãåîòé äîá äùåòä íî úåàá øù÷
éååöä óåñ ãå÷ðå éååöá øùà ïåùàøä úåàä ãå÷ðå
&á éååöä óåñ ãå÷ð äéäéå àåù àìå êìî àåää úåàä ãå÷ðå ø÷ò úåà åúìçú äéä éååö ìë
áëåø íîá äùåòä úåéä áåç úåãå÷ð
Rule on the mem of the active participle, namely what is the evidence
about it; take it from the first letter of the imperative and the vocalization
of the first letter of the imperative and the vocalization of the end of the
imperative
If an imperative begins in a root letter and this letter is vocalized with a
full vowel rather than a shewa and the vowel in the end of the imperative
is a s. ere, the active participle will necessarily begin in an affixed mem.
[Zislin (:)]
20 See ..
rules of derivational relations
Other rules in Me"or #Ayin are paraphrases, for example,
Kitāb al-#Uqūd (Rule )
® ® ® ®
éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë åäå äá èôçúìà áâé ã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô
íàî øàö øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïééðáî ïéààäìà úðàë àîìå ®íàîá àãáà ìòàôìà ïàë
® ® ®
ìöôúú àì äìîâå ìçðé àì ã÷ò åäô êìã èáöàô éðáî ìòàôìà
This leads to a rule which must be learned by heart, namely if the imper-
ative and the past form begin in a non-root heh, the active participle will
always begin in a mem. And whenever the heh’s in the imperative and the
past are built-in, the mem of the active participle is built-in. Learn it well
for this is a rule without exceptions and an inevitable principle.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
Me"or #Ayin:
øáòäå éååöä ùàø úìçúî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå äùåòá éåðá íî úåà áåéç ìò øù÷
äùåòä ùàøá éåðá úåéä íî úåà áåç äéäé ø÷ò åððéà àä íùàøá äéä øáòå éååö ìë
Rule on the inevitability of a built-in mem in the active participle; take
the evidence about it from the beginning of the imperative and the
past
If an imperative and a past form begin in a non-root heh, the mem in the
beginning of the active participle is necessarily built-in.
[Zislin (:)]
In other cases a rule of Kitāb al-#Uqūd is modified and extended in Me"or
#Ayin:
Kitāb al-#Uqūd (Rules ,,):
® ® ®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå
® ®
éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ
® ® ® ® ® ®
óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà àãä
® ®
øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà øéâ à ä
® ® ® ®
ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root heh
is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov. :)
and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions regarding
this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such imperatives
ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb
form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form derived from an
imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw. These are rules
without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
chapter seven
Me"or #Ayin (the heading of this rule is not preserved):
®
úåà íøèî àåä øùà úåàá éååöä óåñá úåãå÷ð éúù íé÷ìç â áéçé éååöä óåñá à ä úåà
®
à ìë éë òãå ®®® åéú úåà äá÷ðä øáòá áéçéå ®®® äöî÷ åìù øáòä óåñá áéçéå ®®® à ä
®
óåñá áééçé íâ éååöä óåñá äéäé øùà à ä úåà òãå ®®® åøáç ìò äðòé àåä íéøáãä â åìàî
®
ãå÷ð ùåìù ãéúòä
The letter heh in the end of an imperative necessitates three things. [It
necessitates] a s. ere in the end of the imperative on the letter before the
letter heh … It also necessitates a qamas. in the end of the past form … It
also necessitates the letter taw in the f.sg. past … Take note that each of
these three matters indicates the others … Take note that the letter heh in
the end of an imperative also necessitates a segol in the end of the future.
[Zislin (:)]
The rules in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin have identical antecedents,
i.e. the heh in the end of the imperative, but differ in the consequents in
that Me"or #Ayin adds the final segol of future forms as a fourth consequent
in addition to the final s. ere of m.sg. imperative, the final qamas. of m.sg.
past, and the formative taw of f.sg. past already mentioned in Kitāb
al-#Uqūd. Moreover, Me"or #Ayin remarks that each of the first three
consequents is indicative of the rest of the forms.
Me"or #Ayin has more rules than Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Most new rules are
based on statements in Kitāb al-#Uqūd which do not take the form of
a rule. For example, a remark in Kitāb al-#Uqūd on the form of the
active participle of verbs in the symbol úT"t is turned into a rule on
the relation between the imperative and the active participle in Me"or
#Ayin.
Kitāb al-#Uqūd:
® ®
áëàø ïàëì ïàë åì êìã ïàì íàî àäéìòàô éô ïåëé ïà æåâé àì úT"ô óéøàöú ïà íìòàå
øîàìàå øîàìà éìò àìà áëøé àì ìòàôìà íàîå àåù àìà äè÷ð ïåëé àì áëàøìàå
® ®
àðàë ïàô íàìëìà ìåà éô àåù éìò àåù ïåëé ïà êìã ïî éâé ïàëô àåù äìåà úT"ô ïî
® ® ®
åà êøçúî éðàúìàå ïëàñ ìåàìà ïàë ïàå êìãëô ïéðëàñ àðàë ïàå æåâé àì ïéëøçúî
® ® ® ®
®íàî úT"ô ìòàô éô ïåëé àì ïà áâå êìãìô æåâé àìô êìã ñëòá
Take note that it is not permissible for the mem to occur in the active
participles of conjugations belonging to úT"t. This is so because, should it
occur, it would be an affixed letter, and the vocalization of an affixed letter
is always a shewa. Further, the mem of the active participle can be attached
only to an imperative. But the first [letter] in any imperative of úT"t has a
shewa. This means that two shewa’s would come together in the beginning
of a word. This, however, is not admissible either when they are both vocal,
or when they are both silent. If the first shewa is silent and the second one
vocal or vice versa, it is still inadmissible. Thus the active participle of úT"t
may not contain the prefix mem. [FEA I , fol. v]
rules of derivational relations
Me"or #Ayin
éååöä ùàø ãå÷ðî åúåà òãú áëåøä äùåòä í î úòéðî ìò øù÷
àåää úåàä éë êì äðòéå í î äùåòä ùàøá ïéà éë êì äðòé àå"ù åãå÷ð úìçú äéäé éååö ìë
®
®ãá$òð åà ø÷ò àåä éë àå"ù åãå÷ð øùà éååöä úìçúá ùà
Rule on the preclusion of an affixed mem in active participles; infer it from
the vocalization of the beginning of the imperative
If the first [letter] of an imperative is vocalized with a shewa, it means that
the active participle does not begin in a mem. It also indicates that the
letter in the beginning of the imperative which is vocalized with a shewa is
a radical or an auxiliary letter. [Zislin (:)]
Sometimes a part of a chapter in Kitāb al-#Uqūd is summarized in a set
of rules in Me"or #Ayin. Thus, the chapter ‘On types of active partici-
ples’ in Kitāb al-#Uqūd discusses among other things the vowel of the
built-in prefix mem in active participles of various verbs. The author
distinguishes between three cases in the vocalization of the prefix and
writes that it can be vocalized: () as the prefix of the past, e.g. áé!Ö î
as áé!Ö ä; () as the prefix of the imperative, e.g. ä k î as ä k ä; () as the
prefix of the past and the prefix of the imperative, e.g. _ l ä"ú!î as _ l ä"ú!ä
and _ l ä"ú!ä. In Me"or #Ayin three rules are formulated to capture these
cases.
Kitāb al-#Uqūd
® ®
ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð ïåëé ìåàìà ®íàñ÷à äúìú éìà äè÷ð éô íñ÷ðà éðáî äðî ïàë àîå
® ® ® ® ®
ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð éðàúìàå ®êìã ìúàî àîå á Ö î á Ö ä áéÖ î áé!Ö ä ÷ë äì éãìà øáòìà
® ® ® ® ® ®
ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð úìàúìàå ®êìã ìúàî àîå ä ë î ä ë ä ìé!ö î ì ö ä ÷ë äì éãìà øîàìà
® ® ® ®
íéî íäìòàô éô éãìà óéøàöúìà òéîâ åäå äì éãìà øáòìà ìåàå äì éãìà øîàìà
® ® ®
_ ì ä"ú!î _ ì ä"ú!ä _ ì ä"ú!ä ÷ë øëàåàìà óìúëîìà ìéàåàìà ÷ôúîìà áàáìà ïî éðáî
® ®
®êìã ìúàî àîå _V á"ú!î _U á"ú!ä _V á"ú!ä
The built-in [prefix mem of the active participle] can be vocalized in three
ways. Firstly, it can have the vowel found in the beginning of its past form,
e.g. áé!Ö ä–áé!Ö î, á Ö ä–á Ö î, etc. Secondly, it can have the vowel found in the
beginning of its imperative, e.g. ì v ä–ìé!v î, ä k ä–ä k î, etc. Thirdly, it can
have the vowel found in the beginning of its imperative and its past form.
This holds for all conjugational patterns with participles in a built-in mem
in the chapter on verbs with identical first but different final [vowels of
the imperative and the past], e.g. _ l ä"ú!ä–_ l ä"ú!ä–_ l ä"ú!î, _V a"ú!ä–_U a"ú!ä–
_V a"ú!î, etc. [FEA I , fol. v]
chapter seven
Me"or #Ayin
®øáòä ùàø ãå÷ðî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä íî ãå÷ð ìò øù÷ ()
í î ãå÷ð äéäé úåãå÷ð éúù à ä úåà úçú äéäéå ø÷ò åððéà à ä åùàøá äéä øáò ìë éë òã
®
úåã÷ðá øáòä ãå÷ð îë äùåòä
Rule on the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active participle; take
the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of the past
Take note that if a past form begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a s. ere,
the vowel of the mem of the active participle will be like the vowel of the
past a s. ere. [Zislin (:)]
åéìò éååöä ùàø ãå÷ð ïî äéàøä åîò ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä í î ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ ()
øàáàùë
çúô äùåòä í î úåà ãå÷ð äéä çúô à ä úåà ãå÷ðå ìôè à ä åùàøá äéä éååö ìë
Rule on inferring the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active partici-
ple; take the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of its
imperative as I will explain
If an imperative begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a patah,
. the vowel
of the mem of the active participle is a patah.
. [Zislin (:)].
øáòäå éååöä ùàø ãå÷ðî åúåà ç÷úå äùåòä íî ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ ()
äéäé ãçà éååöä ùàøå øáòä ùàø ãå÷ð äéäéå ìôè àä úåà íùàøá äéä øáòå éååö ìë
íäá äùåòä íî ãå÷ð
Rule on inferring the vocalization of the mem of the active participle, take
it from the vocalization of the beginning of the imperative and the past
If an imperative and a past form begin in a non-root heh and the vocal-
ization of the beginning of the imperative and the past is identical, the
vocalization of the mem of the active participle will be the same.
[Zislin (:)]
Some new rules in Me"or #Ayin, in particular, rules on the final heh, do
not seem to be based on any material in Kitāb al-#Uqūd, e.g.
àä úåà øù÷
äùåòä óåñá íâå à ä øáòä óåñá úåéäì áéçé ø÷ò åððéà à ä úåà éååöä óåñá äéäé íà
à ä ãéúòä óåñá íâå à ä éåùòä óåñá íâå
Rule on the letter heh
If an imperative ends in a non-root heh, it necessitates a heh in the end
of the past, and a heh in the end of the active participle and the passive
participle, and a heh in the end of the future. [Zislin (:)]
To summarize, rules of derivational relations appear to be the area of
maximal creativity in Me"or #Ayin. The main distinctive features of rules,
rules of derivational relations
such as their implicational character, high level of formalization of fea-
tures of input and output forms, and the prohibition of exceptions are
preserved. Equally unchanged remains the position of the rules with
respect to other means of morphological description: rules are sepa-
rated from the system of symbols and divide verbs into groups which
bear resemblance to binyanim and gezarot. Yet the organization of the
material, the appearance and corpus of rules differ in Me"or #Ayin. All
rules are collected in three consecutive chapters rather than distributed
in the flow of the text, the rules are provided with headings announc-
ing the antecedent and consequent forms and the corpus is modified and
extended. The extraction of the rules from the bulk of the morphological
description in the frame of the system of symbols and the introduction of
special chapters on the rules of derivational relations are signs of a deeper
separation between the rules and the system of symbols in Me"or #Ayin.
The fact that new rules were created and material found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd
in a form incompatible with the definition of a rule was reworked into
rules appears to signify that the author of Me"or #Ayin found it important
to develop and promote this tool of morphological description, presum-
ably, for pedagogical purposes.
chapter eight
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES IN KITĀB AL-#UQŪD
Kitāb al-#Uqūd is a pedagogical grammar. It is specifically targeted at
students who were beginning to study Hebrew systematically, building
on their knowledge of the text of the Scripture. In view of this target
audience, the book’s emphasis on verbal morphology becomes easily
understandable. Indeed, the verbal system is the central part of Hebrew
grammar, a part each beginner needs to master before everything else.
On the whole, the book takes the form of a reference tool on verbal
morphology containing numerous paradigms and chapters dedicated
to methods of morphological analysis. The main objective of learners
studying the Hebrew conjugation from Kitāb al-#Uqūd was to memorize
complete paradigms of all sample verbs. This would enable them to
determine forms of an attested verb by running it through the paradigms,
deciding to which pattern it belongs and conjugating it by analogy with
the respective sample verb:
® ®
àäèôç ïàå óéøàöúìà äáìâú óéøàöúìà ìåöà èôç àîå äâììà íìò éô íìëúîìà
® ® ® ® ®
òéîâ éìò àäöøòà àäôéøöú óéë äéìò øãòú äèôì äì úò÷å àãà äðàì àäáìâ
® ® ®
áòúà àî åäå êìã éìò øã÷é ïìå óøöúú àîî úðàë ïà äì âøëú éäô óéøàöúìà
®
óéøàöúìà èôç éô äñôð
Anybody talking about grammar without having learnt the principles of
conjugational patterns will be overcome by conjugations. But if he learns
them, he will overcome them. This is so because if he encounters a word
which he does not readily know how to conjugate he can compare it with all
conjugational patterns and it will stand out, provided it can be conjugated.
But if he did not take the trouble of learning the conjugational patterns, he
will not be in the position to do this. [FEA I , fol. r]
The author knew that verbal forms can be confusing and that students
can easily become frustrated unless they learn properly. Variations of the
phrase ‘he who does not learn it will be frustrated with the conjugations’1
are recurrent in the book. The author used an array of didactic strategies
aimed to facilitate the acquisition of Hebrew forms. These include lucid
®
1 óéøàöúìà éô ñëòú êìã ®
èáöé íì ïîå [FEA I , fol. r].
chapter eight
sample paradigms, the gradual character of presentation, rules of deriva-
tional relations, systems of mnemonics, algorithms of parsing forms and
model analyses of Biblical passages.
.. Lucidity of Conjugational Patterns
When defining conjugational patterns, the author divided verbs into very
narrow groups so that each conjugational pattern contained verbs of only
one morphological form. He described the paradigm of each group sep-
arately. For example, for hitpa#el verbs he introduced seven conjugational
patterns: () _ l ä"ú!ä for strong verbs; () ã äé"ú!ä for second guttural verbs
which lack the dagesh in the second radical but do not exhibit com-
pensatory lengthening; () ì a z"ñ!ä for first sibilant verbs; () ç t z"ñ!ä for
first sibilant third guttural verbs; () _V a"ú!ä for second guttural verbs
exhibiting compensatory lengthening; () øV z"×!ä for first sibilant sec-
ond guttural verbs exhibiting compensatory lengthening; and () òV z"×!ä
for first sibilant second and third guttural verbs exhibiting compensatory
lengthening. For comparison, in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ only the patterns _ l ä"ú!ä
and _V a"ú!ä are recorded.2 The multiplication of conjugational patterns in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd serves to avoid potential confusion caused by phonetic
changes associated with gutturals and other phonetic irregularities of the
root. This is explicitly stated with regard to verbs with guttural letters:
® ® ® ® ®
áø÷à äðàì êìã éô øéâìà äèáö àî éìà íöúå àäôàìúëà óéøàöú èáöú ïà âàñå
® ®
çåúôîìà øéâá çåúôîìà äéìò ìëùé àìéì éãúáîìà éìò ãö÷î ìäñàå ãëàî
It is permissible to establish for them (i.e. verbs with gutturals) separate
conjugations and add these to what was established by others. This way
they will be easier to grasp and simpler to understand for a beginner, and
clear matters will not be obscured by unclear ones. [FEA I , fol. r]
.. Choice of Verbs Included in the Account
The author admitted having to find a compromise between the complete-
ness and the feasible size of the symbols. He made his decisions based on
the needs of students who were beginners. On the one hand, he included
verbs of rare morphological patterns alongside widely attested verbs to
make sure beginners were able to conjugate irregular verbs:
2 Khan et al. (:, I..).
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
® ® ®
åà äðò ìñé àìéì ãàùìà óéøöúìà éøâî óéë éãúáîìà íìòé éúç àäúøöçà àîðàå
® ®
®ãàùìàë àôë ñéì øåäùîìà óéøöúìà ãà äñôðì äîìò áçé
I included them so that a beginner knows how to conjugate an exceptional
verb in case he is asked about it or wants to know it for himself. Indeed,
well-known verbs are not similar to exceptional ones.
[FEA I , fol. r]
Examples of such conjugational patterns are ì à"î"× ä, the only attested first
strong quadriliteral hiph#il, or à ôT ä, the only first resh final aleph niph#al.3
On the other hand, fearing to overload the students, the author omitted
certain paradigms from the system of symbols and listed them separately:
® ®
éìà àäîöà íì àî äòñúî øéâ éä éúìà óéøàöúìà ïî äúøëã àîøéâ é÷á ã÷ ïàìà
® ® ®
é÷á ã÷ ïà íìòåéì àðäàä àäðî çðñ àî øëã éìò úìååòå àäèôç ì÷úé àìéì äîàìò
® ®
äìîâìà éô ìëãé íì àî
Apart from the non-extensive conjugations I have mentioned above, there
remain others which have not been included in any symbol so that they
do not complicate the learning. I have decided to mention here those
of them which occurred to me and to make it known that there remain
conjugations not included in the total. [FEA I , fol. r]
Examples of imperatives on this list are äå#ç z"Ö!ä from é!úéå#ç z"Ö!ä (Sam.
:), ò Ö"ò Ö from eò Ö(ò Ö"z (Isa. :), ïðek from epðeëéå (Job :), ä ì#òÇä
from ä ú ì#òÇä (Nahum :), etc.4 In Me"or #Ayin a shortened version of
this list is included under the heading ‘Imperatives which most probably
have a past form but we do not know what it is.’5 On the contrary, Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn excluded all rare verbs from the system of symbols on
purely theoretical grounds that their derivative forms are not sufficiently
attested to decide on the appropriate symbol.6
.. Didactic Elements in Pattern Description
Conjugational patterns are described in Kitāb al-#Uqūd by citing a set of
forms of a sample verb. In some conjugations two or even three sample
paradigms are provided, presumably, following the maxim that repetition
is the mother of learning. In the very first conjugational pattern áé Ö ä the
author found it necessary to explain certain forms instead of just listing
them:
3 See Lambert (:–, –).
4 The imperatives ò Ö"ò Ö, ïðek, and ä ì#òÇä are hypothetical.
5 Zislin (:).
6 Khan et al. (:–, I..).
chapter eight
® ®
ïà ãàøà àîì äöîà÷ äìá÷ ìòâå à ä øëãîìà ãéçéìà éìò ãàæ ä áé!Ö"î äìòàôìàå
® ® ® ®
òîâì éãìà åúå åàå ãàæå äöîà÷ìàå à äìà äãéçéìà ïî óãç úÇáé!Ö"î úàìòàôìàå ºúðåé
®
®úéðàúìà
The active participle f.sg. is ä áé!Ö"î. [The Scripture] added a heh to the m.sg.
participle and used a qamas. before it, when it intended to make it feminine.
The active participle f.pl. is úÇáé!Ö"î. It elided from the f.sg. form the heh and
the qamas. and added the waw and taw which serve to form f.pl.
[FEA I , fol. v]
A similar introduction is given into verb forms with object suffixes.
Usually forms with object suffixes are supplied with Arabic translations
and arranged in tables. A table is a format of presentation which does not
allow much space for grammatical explanations. It certainly is not suited
to explain the phenomenon of object suffixes and introduce their forms.
Hence, in the first conjugational pattern the author presented a number
of forms of the m.sg. past form áé!Ö ä with object suffixes in running text
and fully described the agent-patient combination encoded in each form:
®
øàöô é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ àìòàô ïàëå äñôð éìà øáòìà ìòôìà íìëúîìà ãø àãàå
® ® ® ®
äðà øáëà àãàå ®åé!úÇáé!ù"ä äñôð ïò ìà÷ äì àìòàô ïàë àãàå ®ãåéìàå åúìà äøéîö
® ® ®
ìà÷ úàáéàâìì àìòàô äðà øáëà àãàå ®íé!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ ïéøëãîìà ïéáéàâìì àìòàô
® ®
^é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ äìáà÷é ïîìå ® äé!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ àäì àìòàô äðà øáëà àãàå ºïé!úÇáé!ù"ä
® ® ®
ìòô íìëúîìà ãø àãàå ®_é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ éúðà ïàë ïàå àìâø ìáà÷îìà ïàë àãà
®
ïåðìà äá ò÷àå ìòôìàå äøéîöô éð áé!Ö"ä ìà÷ äá ò÷àå ìòôìàå äñôð éìà øáòìà
® ®
®ãåéìàå å úìà äøéîö øàö äðî ò÷àå ìòôìà ïàë àãàå ãåéìàå
If a m.sg. speaker referred with the past verb form to himself as an agent, he
would say é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, the sg. pronoun being the taw and yod. If he acted as an
agent with regard to a m.sg. patient, he would say about himself åé!úÇáé!Ö"ä.
If he informed that he was an agent with regard to a m.pl. patient, he
would say íé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. If he informed that he was an agent with regard to a
f.pl. patient, he would say ïé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. If he informed that he was an agent
with regard to a f.sg. patient, he would say äé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. And with regard to
a sg. patient he would say ^é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, if it is a man, and _é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, if [the
patient] is feminine. If a m.sg. speaker referred with the past verb form to
himself as a patient, he would say éð áé!Ö"ä,7 the object pronoun for the sg.
being the nun and yod. And the subject sg. pronoun is the taw and yod.
[FEA I , fol. r–v]
Providing such explanations in the very beginning of the book is certainly
a pedagogical tool used to introduce the reader gradually into the subject
matter.
7 The expected vocalization is éð áé!Ö"ä.
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
.. Capturing Regularities in Verb Forms
Rules of derivational relations intended to link different forms to one
another were introduced by the author in order to facilitate the learning
of paradigms by providing some insight into the logic of the Hebrew
verbal system:
® ®
óéøàöúìà éìò øèàðìà àäøáñéì óéøàöúìà ïéá àîéô ã÷ò ìë øëã úîã÷ àîðàå
® ®
ãòá óéøàöúìà õéìëú äéìò áòöé àìô àèôç äì øéöúå äãðò ø÷úñúô ìåàô ìåà
® ®
®ìåöàìà äãä èáö
I have presented first the discussion of the rules pertaining to paradigms so
that he who studies the paradigms can examine them one by one and they
will settle down in his mind, and he will remember them. When he masters
these principles it will not be difficult for him to complete the paradigms.
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
Even though it might appear from this quotation that the rules are
collected together and presented in one block before the paradigms for
the benefit of the learners, the opposite is the case. The rules are, in
fact, dispersed in the text of Kitāb al-#Uqūd and offered as part of the
discussion on verbs of relevant types as the need arises.
The role of rules as didactic tools is also stressed in Me"or #Ayin where
these are collated and presented in a separate section of the book:
êéðéòá ïåùìä úòã ì÷ú åúåà øåîùúå åúåà ùôçú íà ÷åîòå ìåãâ àåä øòùä äæ éë òã
Take note that this chapter (i.e. the chapter on rules of derivational rela-
tions) is large and deep. If you study and grasp it, it will be easier for you
to learn the language. [Zislin (:)]
Not knowing the rules is said to lead to confusion and frustration:
® ® ® ® ®
äâììà óéøàöú øúëà éìò øãú÷ú éúç ú î ä ä ïð"ä í ä ä éäå ãå÷ò äúìúìà äãä èáöàô
à äá øáòìà ìäå íàîá åà ïåðá ìòàôìà ìä ñàáúìàìà éô úò÷å àäá úðåàäú ïàô
ïåðá åà
Learn these three rules, i.e. í ä ä, ïð"ä, and ú î ä ä in order to master most
conjugational patterns of the language. But if you neglect them, you will
be confused whether the active participle begins in a nun or a mem, and
whether the past begins in a heh or a nun. [FEA I , fol. r]
® ® ® ® ®
®®® åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå
® ® ®
å ú øéâáå å úá úðåîìà øáò éô ïàì óéøàöúìà éô ñëòú êìã èáöé íì ïîå
The third rule is that if an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the f.sg. past
form will always end in a taw … He, who does not learn it, will be frustrated
with the conjugational patterns because there are f.sg. past forms with and
without taw. [FEA I , fol. v, r]
chapter eight
The author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd realized that his rules would not suffice
to describe all types of Hebrew verbs and did not exclude the possibility
that more rules could be added:
® ® ® ® ® ® ®
èôç êìã ãòá ãù àîô áàáìà àãä óéøàöú øúëà ïéã÷òìà ïéãäá èáöðà ã÷ô
® ® ® ® ®
ãàùìà äá èáöúô äá øôèà íì àîî äá øôèú ïà êàñò àî áìèú ìòì åà àèôç
äá òúôðåéô
These two rules capture most conjugational patterns in this chapter. As for
the exceptions that are left after that, they should be learned by heart. Or
maybe you can try to include [in a rule] what I could not include. Then
you will capture the exceptional cases and it will be useful.
[FEA I , fol. v]
.. Mnemonics
Kitāb al-#Uqūd uses a number of mnemonics (ribāt. ) to assist memory.
In some mnemonics only the consonants are representative of the phe-
nomenon to be captured, in others it is the vowels or whole words.
... Mnemonics Based on Consonants
a. Mnemonics ÷C ö òæb ø t ñ è ç and äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö8
The first set of mnemonics based on consonants are mnemonics for root
and servile letters. Root letters are arranged into a mnemonic òæb ø t ñ è ç
÷C ö; servile letters are arranged into a mnemonic äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö. These
mnemonics, coined by Menahem . ben Saruq,9 are well known and were
used by many grammarians, Karaite as well as Rabbanite.10 Interestingly,
different mnemonics are used for root and servile letters in al-Kitāb
al-Kāfı̄ (ç ö ãb ÷ òæ ø ñ"ô!è for root letters and í Ö ì ú ä ï ëé!á#àå for servile
letters)11 indicating that the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd held it necessary
to change mnemonics and return to the more widely known ones for his
abridgment.
8 FEA I , fol. r.
9 Sáenz-Badillos (:, *).
10 See Allony (:, , :); Bacher (b:); Derenbourg (:–
, , :); Dotan (:); Maman (a:–); Zislin (:–).
11 Khan et al. (:, I..–).
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
b. Mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä12
The set of mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä is, to the best of my knowl-
edge, unique to Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin. These mnemonics, also
referred to as ‘rules’ are coined for imperatives beginning in a non-root
heh (in modern terms, hiph#il, niph#al and hitpa#el verbs) and summa-
rize the prefixes of their imperative, past and active participle forms. The
mnemonic í ä ä was coined for transitive imperatives with an initial non-
root heh (hiph#il verbs). Here the heh’s represent the prefixes of the imper-
ative and the past, and the mem represents the prefix of the active partici-
ple, e.g. imperative _ ì"Ö ä, past _é!ì"Ö!ä, active participle _é!ì"Ö î. Along the
same lines, the mnemonic ïð"ä represents intransitive imperatives with an
initial non-root heh (niph#al verbs), e.g. imperative ïÇk!ä, past ïÇëð, active
participle ïÇëð. The mnemonic ú î ä ä is coined for imperatives which begin
in a heh followed by a taw of ifti#āl (hitpa#el verbs), e.g. imperative _ l ä"ú!ä,
past _ l ä"ú!ä, active participle _ l ä"ú!î.
... Mnemonics Based on Vowels
a. Mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a13
Mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a represent the vocalization of built-in14 pre-
fixes of future verb forms and are unique to Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or
#Ayin. ä î î&g ä stands for the four possible vowels of built-in future pre-
fixes in transitive verbs, e.g. _é!ì"Öé, áé!ÖÇé, áé!èéé, áé!Öé. In turn, éðé a stands for
the vowels of built-in future prefixes of intransitive verbs, e.g. è ì né, à ôTé.
b. The Symbols
The symbols are mnemonics representing the first (or last) vowels of
the imperative and the past of various groups of verbs. Kitāb al-#Uqūd
contains twelve symbols based on the first vowel of the imperative and
the past, namely à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò,
and _U a. Five symbols are based on the last vowel of these forms: á ñ î,
ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a and éX t.
12 FEA I , fol. v–r.
13 FEA I , fol. v.
14 See ...
chapter eight
... Mnemonics Based on Words
One mnemonic based on words is used in Kitāb al-#Uqūd in a syntactical
chapter dedicated to the word order in Biblical Hebrew.15 The author
counted six different ways in which the verb (V), the subject (S) and the
object (O) can be arranged and exemplified them as follows:
. VSO: àé!áp ä eäé"îYé ú à øeç"Ö ô ä kiå (Jer. :);
®
. SVO: äT × ú à ãK t éé (Gen. :);
. OVS: ùT ç _ ñð ì ñ t ä (Isa. :);
. SOV: ìé!t z íé!à ôY õW àå (Isa. :);
. OSV: Çîé q ëé Çîé ú ô"× ì î#ò é a!ñ"î Öà] (Ps. :);16
. VOS: ø òð í úÇà àYiå (Sam. :).
To summarize the various word orders, the author introduced a mne-
monic sentence made up of initial17 words of each verse (not necessarily
in the form in which they occur in the verse): õW à ä ì ñ t ä ä cR"t á ä k%ä
äé àY ä Öà]. It is interesting to note that this section in Kitāb al-#Uqūd is a
close abridgment of the chapter ‘On the verb, the agent and the patient’
in al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄.18 In al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ the same six arrangements are
discussed but the mnemonic is not given. Hence, it must have been
coined and added by the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd.
... Classification of Sample Imperatives by Mnemonics
Of the mnemonics two sets are particularly important as they are used in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd to classify sample imperatives. These mnemonics capture
certain elements of paradigms which are common to all imperatives in
a class and thus reduce the amount of information which needs to be
remembered. The first system is the set of symbols themselves. A learner
was given a list of sample imperatives belonging to each symbol. Below
is the beginning of this list:
®_V á ®äVæ ® çð ä ®á Ö ä ®ãåé øéâá øô ä ®ãåéá áé Ö ä ®óéøàöú äúñ à á ä
®ò l á ®ø áA ®ä ìâ ä ®ä ìâ ® çð ä ®Öâ ä ®ãåé øéâá ì ö ä ®ãåéá ìé ö ä ®ä k ä ®óéøöú ïéøùò épâ
®ì à"î"× ä ® ò ú"ò ú ®ì áY ë ®ä ëYE ä ®ä ÖO á ® ò á"Ö ä ®ø ö"ô ä ®_ ì"Ö ä ®_é ì"ù ä ®í çU ® ç áæ
15
FEA I , fol. v.
16
The verse is cited according to qere. MT: Çîå q ëé.
17 An exception is the second case (SVO), where the second word is used in the
mnemonic.
18 Khan et al. (:–, I.).
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
à á ä includes six conjugational patterns: áé Ö ä with yod, ø ô ä without yod,
á Ö ä, çð ä, äVæ and _V a.
épb includes twenty conjugations: ä k ä, ìé v ä with yod, ì v ä without yod, Öb ä,
çp ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a, ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä,
ì aY k, ò z"ò z, ì à"î"× ä. [FEA I , fol. v]
Knowing the symbol to which a particular imperative belongs, the stu-
dent could deduce the vowel of the past form as it was encoded in the
symbol. This system of classification embraces all verbs described in the
treatise.
The second classification is relevant only for imperatives beginning in
a non-root heh. It uses the mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä as class labels.
As with symbols, a learner was provided with lists of sample imperatives
belonging to each of í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä. An extract from the list of
imperatives in the class í ä ä is given below:
®ãåéá ìé ö äå ®ä k äå ® çð äå ®á Ö äå ®ãåé øéâá á ù äå ®ãåéá áé Ö ä ®óéøàöú äãò ìîùú í ä ä
® òð"ë äå ®ø ö"ô äå ®ãåé øéâá _ ì"Ö äå ®ãåéá _ ì"Ö äå ®ä ìâ äå ® çp äå ®Öâ äå ®ãåé øéâá ì ö äå
®äVæ"ò äå ®ãåé øéâá ã îòäå ®ãåéá ãé î#ò äå ®ä ì#ò äå ®ì à"î"× äå ®ä ëYE äå
í ä ä includes a number of conjugations: áé Ö ä with yod, á Ö ä without yod,
á Ö ä, çð ä, ä k ä, ìé v ä with yod, ì v ä without yod, Öb ä, çp ä, ä ìâ ä, _ ì"Ö ä with
yod, _ ì"Ö ä without yod, ø ö"ô ä, òð"ë ä, ä ëYE ä, ì à"î"× ä, ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä with yod,
ã î#ò ä without yod, and äVæ"ò ä. [FEA I , r–v]
A student who knew to which group a sample imperative belonged, could
work out past and participle forms from the mnemonic and did not
have to remember them separately. The mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a are
also closely associated with this classification because ä î î&g ä summarizes
vowels of future prefixes in the class í ä ä and éðé a does the same for the
class ïð"ä.19
.. Algorithms of Parsing
... Algorithms for Establishing Imperative Bases
The author equipped his readers with algorithms of parsing attested
forms for the purpose of establishing imperative bases. He instructed
students that the easiest way to work out imperatives was to look for
forms with future prefixes or for active participles with the prefix mem.
19 FEA I , fol. v.
chapter eight
Given any of these forms, one can elide its prefix and get the imperative:
® ®
àîà óãçà ìàá÷úñàìà èôì àîàå ìòàôìà íñà àîà ãö÷à øîàìà úãøà éúîô
® ®
®øîàìà ãëå ìàá÷úñàìà óøç àîàå ìòàôìà íéî
When you need [to establish] an imperative, look for an active participle
or a future form, elide either the mem of the active participle or the future
prefix and take the imperative. [FEA I , fol. r]
To make the logic behind this procedure clearer, the author gave this real
life parallel:
® ® ®
àøîç äîàîò àãáà äñàø éìò ïåëé ïáåàø äîñà ïî ìë ïà ìå÷é ïî éøâî êìã éøâé
® ® ® ®
øöëìàå øîçìà íéàîòìà áàçöà ãö÷à ïáåàø äîñà ïî úãøà éúîô àøöë äîàîòå
It is as if somebody told you that everybody whose name is Reuven always
wears a red or a green turban on his head. Then if you had to find a
person whose name is Reuven, you would look for people in red and green
turbans. [FEA I , fol. r]
The exact algorithm for inferring imperative bases depended on the
nature of the prefix. For affixed prefixes20 a mere elision of the prefix
produces the imperative:
® ® ® ® ®
®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô
If [the prefix] is affixed, when you elide it, the imperative does not require
any additions. [FEA I , fol. r]
For example, the imperative _V a can be obtained by the elision of the
affixed prefix aleph from the future _V á"à or the elision of the affixed
mem from the active participle _V á"î. In case of a built-in prefix,21 the
imperative is obtained by the replacement of the future or participle
prefix by the prefix heh:
® ® ® ® ®
à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç àãà éðáî ïàë àãàå
If [the prefix] is built-in, when you elide it, the imperative requires an
addition of the heh. [FEA I , fol. r]
Thus, eliding the built-in aleph from the future form ìé!v à or the built-in
mem from the active participle form ìé!v î and replacing them by a heh
will result in the imperative form ìé v ä.
20 See ...
21 See ...
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
... Algorithms for Determining
Nuclear Components of Complex Forms
As is well known, a written Hebrew word, i.e. a text unit between two
spaces, can consist of a word with its various affixes joined together with
syntactical elements such as the article, the conjunction we- and mono-
syllabic prepositions. Such forms must be divided into their components
before they can be parsed morphologically. A special chapter ‘On strip-
ping words of added letters in order for a word to return to its basic
form without additions’ is dedicated in Kitāb al-#Uqūd to splitting such
complex forms into constituents and determining their nucleus. In this
chapter the author analyzed compounds based on various verbal forms,
namely imperatives, e.g. eîe÷iå; active participles, e.g. íé!ë"ìÇä ä; past forms,
e.g Öé!cO!ä ä; and infinitives, e.g. í ë"úÇð"á!a. Each example was intended to
serve as a model for stripping other words of the respective pattern:
® ® ® ®
àäìúî àäðæå ïàë àî ìë úéøâà äãçàå äîìë àäðî êì õìëú àãà
If one of the words is stripped for you, you can handle everything of its
morphological pattern in the same manner. [FEA I , fol. v]
Below is a section on stripping forms based on active participles:
ìöô
® ®
íé!ÖO á"î ä íé!ë"ô&ä ä íé!ë"ìÇä ä å÷ë ïéìòàôìà àîñà éìò äéðáîìà íìëìà õéìëú éô
® ® ®
íé!ë"ôÇä íé!ë"ìÇä úàøëð úé÷á àîñàìà ñåø ïî óéøòúìì éãìà úààäìà úöìë àãà
® ® ® ®
ñ÷å ä ÖO á"î _ ôÇä _ ìÇä à÷áé òîâìì ïàãìà íàîå ãåé àäðî úöìë àãàô íé!ÖO á"î
® ®
:äéøâî éøâ àî äéìò
Section
On stripping words based on active participles, e.g. íé!ë"ìÇä ä, íé!ë"ô&ä ä,
íé!ÖO á"î ä. If you strip the heh’s of definiteness from the beginning of the
participles, they will become indefinite, íé!ë"ìÇä, íé!ë"ôÇä, íé!ÖO á"î. Then if you
strip them off the yod and mem of the plural, what will remain is _ ìÇä, _ ôÇä,
ä ÖO á"î.22 Treat similar cases by analogy. [FEA I , fol. v]
.. Model Analyses of Biblical Passages
On two occasions Biblical passages are used as model texts demonstrat-
ing methods of grammatical analysis.23 In the very beginning of the book
22This participle form is hypothetical, see ...
23Similar passages in Me"or #Ayin have previously been identified as pedagogical by
A. Maman (:).
chapter eight
in the chapter ‘On parts of speech’ the author discussed characteristic fea-
tures of verbs, nouns and particles and established criteria for attributing
words to a part of speech. He then applied these criteria to Gen. :– in
order to create a model for analogical analyses of the Scripture and of the
Hebrew language in general. The analysis of Gen. : is:
® ®
ìéà÷ ìà÷ ïà ºäâììà øéàñå àø÷îìà òéîâ äéìò ñà÷éì úéùàøá ìöô õìëà àðààäå
® ®
ºàäéìò áëàø à áìà ïàì íñà éä äì ì÷ íãàë íà ìòô íà íñà éä úéùàøá äèôì
® ® ® ® ®
êîì óåøç äéìò áëøé ïàì íñà íé!äì"à éöàîìà ïàîæìàá õúëà ã÷ äðàì ìòô àT a
® ® ® ® ®
ºíãàë ú àå ®äéìò áëàø à äìà ïàì íñà íé î ùä ºíãàë ú à ®íéäìàá íéäìàî å÷ë äá
® ® ® ®
àãàå íéD á#ò ã á ò ìúî íé!öT"à àöéà äòîâúå à äìà äéìò áëø ã÷ ïàì íñà õW à ä
®
:úÇî ë"ç ä î ë"ç ìúî ä öT"à àäðî ãçàåìàô úÇöT"à úéàø
I will now analyze a portion from Genesis so that the entire Scripture and
the rest of the language be treated by analogy. If someone says: ‘Is the word
úé!ÖàV"a a noun, a verb, or a particle?’ tell him: ‘it is a noun, because [the
letter] bet is affixed to it.’ àT a is a verb because it specifically refers to the
® ® ® ® ®
past tense. íé!äÀ"à is a noun because the letters äá êîì can be affixed to it as
it is said íé!äÀà î, íé!äÀà a. ú à is a particle. íé î g ä is a noun because the heh is
attached to it. ú àå is a particle. õW à ä is a noun because the heh is attached
to it and also [because] you can make it plural íé!öT"à as ã á ò–íéD á#ò. But if
you encounter úÇöT"à, the singular of it is ä öT"à, as in ä î ë"ç–úÇî ë"ç.24
[FEA I , fol. r]
Later in the book a model analysis of all verbs in Ps. exemplifies the
attribution of attested verbs to symbols:
® ® ®
®øeâé éî éé ãåãì øåîæî ®êìã ïî äòéîâ äéìò ñà÷éì ìöô àø÷îìà ïî øééñà àðààäå
äîìë ìëå ì òeù ïî åäå øîàåàìà éìò áëøé ìàá÷úñàìà óøç ïàì øeâ øeâé ïî øîàìà
® ®
®øëãìà ïî àäôãçà àðà óéøöú àäì ñéì øåîæîìà éô
®
®úT"ô ïî åäå ø&î"Ö ø&î"Öé ìúî ï&ë"Ö àäðî øîàìà ï&ë"Öé
®_ ì ä øáòìà ïàì úT"ô ïî éäå _À"ä øîàìàå ìòàô íñà _ ìÇä
®®®
I will now set forth [an analysis of] a portion from the Scripture so that
®
the whole can be treated analogously. øeâé é!î éé ãå@"ì øÇîæ!î (Ps. :). The
imperative of øeâé is øeb because the letters of the future are attached to
imperatives. It belongs to ì òeÖ. I will not mention those words in the Psalm
which cannot be conjugated.
24 The pairs attested singular õW à–hypothetical plural íé!öT"à, hypothetical singular
ä öT"à–attested plural úÇöT"àwere created to maintain the regularity in the derivation of
plural forms, in that singular forms ending in -ah always have plural forms ending in -ot
and singular forms which do not end in -ah always have plural forms ending in -im. The
same principle of derivation of plural forms was applied by Ibn Nūh. (see Khan (a:–
)).
pedagogical strategies in kitāb al-#uqūd
The imperative of ï&k"Öé (Ps. :) is ï&ë"Ö, similar to ø&î"Öé–ø&î"Ö. It belongs to
úT"t.
_ ìÇä (Ps. :) is an active participle, the imperative is _À"ä.25 It belongs to
úT"t because the past is _ ì ä … [FEA I , fol. v]
25 This imperative is hypothetical. Hypothetical imperatives of this type were proposed
by early Karaite grammarians (see Khan (a:)).
chapter nine
CONCLUSIONS
In this book I have reconstructed from unpublished sources and de-
scribed the medieval Karaite treatise on Hebrew grammar Kitāb al-#Uqūd
fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya. Based on this reconstruction, I con-
ducted a comparative study of Karaite approaches to the verbal conju-
gation of Biblical Hebrew as they are reflected in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and
other Karaite works on verbal morphology, such as the Diqduq of Abū
Ya#qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūh, . an anonymous treatise on the Hebrew verbs,
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil and al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, an
anonymous treatise Me"or #Ayin and a number of grammatical Genizah
fragments of Karaite origin. I anticipated that such comparative analysis
could contribute to identifying the lines of development and transmis-
sion of the Karaite grammatical tradition. Now that the details of the rela-
tion between the grammars in the area of verbal conjugation have been
elucidated, it is possible to draw conclusions on the position of Kitāb al-
#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin in the chain of the Karaite grammatical works.
As was mentioned in the introduction, two periods are distinguished
in the development of the Karaite grammatical thought.1 In the early
period (till the end of the th–the beginning of the th century) gram-
mars took the shape of grammatical commentaries to difficult places
in the text of the Bible with limited attempts to present grammati-
cal knowledge systematically in the area of verbal and nominal inflec-
tion. On the other hand, in the classical period (th century) inte-
gral systematic grammars of the Biblical language were produced. The
present study shows that the classical period can be further divided
into two successive stages. Initially comprehensive scholarly grammars
were composed which dealt with all areas of Hebrew linguistics, and,
indeed, were concerned with Language in general. Such grammars were
authored by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj. These were followed by ped-
agogical grammars intended to teach Biblical Hebrew to beginning stu-
dents represented by Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin. The pedagogical
1 See Khan (a, b); Khan et al. (:xi–xxxii).
chapter nine
grammars were based on scholarly grammars which they shortened
and adapted for the needs of the beginners. The appearance of these
works is well in line with the general trend to create didactic abridg-
ments evident in the Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic literature of the th
century.2 Although still broad in scope pedagogical grammars concen-
trated mainly on morphology, verbal and to a lesser extent nominal,
leaving syntactical, semantic and lexicological issues at the outskirts.
They resembled early attempts at systematizing morphological knowl-
edge in providing large numbers of extensive and often purely hypo-
thetical paradigms of Hebrew verbs. Besides, the pedagogical grammars
are distinguished by the gradual character of presentation and the use
of various didactic strategies designed to facilitate learning and equip
students with tools for independent investigation of the Biblical text.
Admittedly, didactic elements were pointed out in a number of stud-
ies on both early and scholarly Karaite grammatical works. G. Khan
suggested that the practice of offering alternative explanations of gram-
matical difficulties in the Biblical text characteristic of early Karaite
grammarians was a pedagogical device which ‘encouraged enquiry and
engagement rather then passive acceptance of authority.’3 A. Maman
identified the following didactic tools in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil by Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn: () abundant examples; () description of phenomena
in exhaustive detail; () analysis of multiple examples; () repetition of
terms and definitions; and () revision of grammatical notions explained
before.4 Yet in these works didactic elements are sporadic. In contrast,
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd and Me"or #Ayin the pedagogical aspect is so promi-
nent that it defines both the focus of the books and the way material is
presented.
In terms of the grammatical theory Kitāb al-#Uqūd combines the
approach of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn with that of early grammarians. It is
well known that despite including elements of earlier teachings in his
description of the verbal morphology, in particular the system of symbols
and the practice of proposing imperative bases as a means of parsing ver-
bal forms,5 Abū al-Faraj Hārūn broke with the early tradition in a num-
ber of cases, often by virtue of adopting a semantic rather than a purely
2 See Arazi, Ben Shammai ().
3 Khan (b:).
4 Maman (:–).
5 See Khan et al. (:xxxvii–xxxviii).
conclusions
structural approach to verbal derivation.6 Thus, he argued that the infini-
tive rather than the imperative was the primary verb form on the grounds
of its semantic priority. In the same vein he dismissed passive imperative
bases which were commonly proposed by early grammarians as seman-
tically unsound. In all such issues of divergence between the early tra-
dition and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn the author of Kitāb al-#Uqūd followed
the latter. Yet in the derivation of forms proper, he adopted the most
rigid approach developed by the early school which demanded com-
plete structural correspondence between the imperative and its deriva-
tive forms. Most types of hypothetical imperatives proposed by early
grammarians to account for deviations in attested forms are recorded in
Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Moreover, Kitāb al-#Uqūd is more rigorous at preserv-
ing the one-to-one correspondence between a derivational base and its
inflections than most early grammars. Indeed, where early grammar-
ians offered alternative imperatives of a derivative form or alternative
derivatives of an imperative base, our author made a definitive choice.
Examples include the twofold vocalization of third guttural imperatives
depending on the vocalization of the occurring form, rigid choice of the
middle vowel in second weak verbs in pa#al, and the invariable vocal-
ization of the m.sg. past form of pi#el verbs with a patah. in the final
syllable.
Structural analogy between verb forms is carried out to the utmost
in Kitāb al-#Uqūd, often at the expense of semantic and prosodical con-
siderations. Thus, grammatical patterns of imperative bases of active or
context verbs were extended to analogical forms even if these are passive
or pausal. On the other hand, íé!ìeî (Josh. :) was not interpreted as a
passive participle on the grounds of the lack of a base of analogy, because
other middle weak verbs in pa#al were deemed not to have passive partici-
ples. A possible explanation of the return to rigid structuralism comple-
mented by a strong tendency to regularize grammatical features of verbs
can be seen in the didactic nature of Kitāb al-#Uqūd. Indeed, a system
of verbal conjugation in which everything is standardized and analogi-
cal could have been perceived as most easily accessible to beginning stu-
dents.
Most innovations found in Kitāb al-#Uqūd are of a pedagogical nature,
too. Apart from some new types of hypothetical imperatives (e.g. imper-
atives with and without yod in tri-radical verbs), the author introduced
6 See Khan ().
chapter nine
new tools of morphological analysis, such as the status of consonants
and vowels, and new ways of presenting morphological information,
including lucid conjugational patterns, rules of derivational relations,
new mnemonics and systems of verbal classification. The grammatical
and pedagogical system of Kitāb al-#Uqūd was fully adopted in Me"or
#Ayin which makes an impression of a compilative rather than creative
work, at least with regard to verbal morphology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allony, N., , Ha-Egron, Jerusalem.
———, , ‘Three excerpts from Qarqa#ot ha-Diqduq by Joshua ben Abraham,’
in Gilat, Y.D., Levine, H.Y., Rabinowitz, S.M. (eds), Studies in Rabbinic Liter-
ature, Bible and Jewish History in Honor of Prof. E.Z. Melamed, Ramat-Gan,
pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Genizah fragments of Hebrew philology,’ in Festschrift zum -
jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbiblio-
thek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), Vienna, pp. –.
Ankori, Z., , Karaites in Byzantium, New York, Jerusalem.
Arazi, A., Ben Shammai, H., , ‘Mukhtas. ar,’ in The Encyclopaedia of Islam
(New Edition), Leiden, vol. , cols. –.
Bacher, W., Kaufmann, D., Grünwald, Porgés, , ‘Les singes mnémoniques
des lettres radicales et serviles,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –.
Bacher, W., a, ‘Le grammairien anonyme de Jérusalem,’ Revue des Études
Juives , pp. –.
———, b, Die Anfänge der Hebräischen Grammatik, Leipzig.
Baker, C.F., Polliack, M., , Arabic and Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the
Cambridge Genizah Collections: Arabic Old Series (T-S Ar.a-), Cambridge.
Basal, N., , ‘Excerpts from the abridgment (al-Muhtas. ar) of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄
˘
by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn in Arabic script,’ Israel Oriental Studies , pp. –
[in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Part One of al-Kitāb al-Muštamil by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and
its dependence on Ibn al-Sarrāj’s Kitāb al-Us. ūl fı̄ al-Nahu,
. ’ Leshonenu ,
pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘The concept of hāl . in al-Kitāb al-Muštamil of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn
in comparison with Ibn al-Sarrāj,’ Israel Oriental Studies , pp. – [in
Hebrew].
———, , ‘A fragment of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s al-Kitāb al-Muštamil in Arabic
script,’ Jewish Quarterly Review , pp. –.
———, , ‘Specification in the syntactical understanding of the Karaite gram-
marian Abū al-Faraj Hārūn,’ Pe#amim , pp. – [in Hebrew].
Becker, D., , ‘The “ways” of the Hebrew verb according to the Karaite
grammarians Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and the author of Me"or #Ayin,’ in Friedman,
M.A. (ed.), Studies in Judaica, Te#udah , Tel-Aviv, pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘#Od simanim ba-lašon ha-#irit,’ Leshonenu la-#Am (), pp. –.
———, , ‘A unique semantic classification of the Hebrew verb taken by
the Qaraite "Abū al-Faraj Hārūn from the Arab grammarian "Ibn al-Sarrāj,’
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam , pp. –.
Beit-Arié, M., , Hebrew Codicology. Tentative Typology of Technical Practices
Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts, Jerusalem.
Ben-Sasson, H.H., , ‘The Karaite community of Jerusalem in the tenth-
eleventh centuries,’ Shalem , pp. – [in Hebrew].
bibliography
Ben-Shammai, H., , ‘The Karaites,’ in Prawer, J., Ben-Shammai, H. (eds),
The History of Jerusalem. The Early Muslim Period (–), Jerusalem,
pp. –.
Ben-Yehuda, E., , Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis et Veteris et Recentioris,
vols, New York, London (complete international centennial edition).
BDB: Brown, F., Driver, S.R., Briggis, C.A., , A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, Oxford (reprint with corrections).
Cowley, A.E., , Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by
E. Kautzsch, Oxford (reprinted ).
Dalman, G., , Grammatik des Jüdish-Palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig.
Derenbourg, J., , Manuel du Lecteur, d’un Auteur Inconnu, Paris.
———, , Le Livre des Parterres Fleuris. Grammaire Hébraïque en Arabe
D’Abou’l-Walid Merwan Ibn Djanah de Cordoue, Paris.
———, , ‘Les singes mnémotechniques des lettres radicales et serviles,’ Revue
des Études Juives , pp. –.
Diehl, W., , Das Pronomen Personale Suffixum: . und . Pers. Plur. des
Hebräischen in der Alttestamentlichen Ueberlieferung, Giessen.
Diez-Macho, A., , ‘A new list of so-called “Ben Naftali” manuscripts,’ in
Winton Thomas, D., McHardy, W.D. (eds), Hebrew and Semitic Studies pre-
sented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, Oxford, pp. –.
Dodi, A., , ‘A morphological study of the weak verbs in Targum Onqelos,’
Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew].
Dotan, A., , The Diqduqé Hat. t. ĕ#amim of Ahăron ben Moše ben Ašér, Jerusa-
lem [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Masorah,’ in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, vol. , cols. –
.
———, , The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics. The Book of Elegance of the Lan-
guage of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon, vols, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
Dozy, R., , Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, vols, Leiden-Paris (rd.
edition).
Eldar, I., , The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. –
C.E.), Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Chapter concerning the places of articulation of the consonants
from the long version of Hidāyat al-Qāri,’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in
Hebrew].
———, , ‘Muhtas. ar Hidāyat al-Qāri edited according to Genizah fragments,’
Leshonenu ,˘pp. –; , pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , The Study of the Art of Correct Reading as Reflected in the Medieval
Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāri (= Guidance of the Reader), Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
Erder, Y., , ‘The mourners of Zion,’ in Polliack, M. (ed.), Karaite Judaism,
Leiden, pp. –.
Gallego, M.Á., , ‘Origen y evolución del lenguaje según el gramático y
exegeta caraíta Abū al-Farağ Hārūn ibn al-Farağ,’ Sefarad /, pp. –.
Gil, M., , A History of Palestine, –. Translated from the Hebrew by
Ethel Broido, Cambridge and New York.
Goldenberg, E., , ‘The first Hebrew conjugation table,’ Leshonenu , pp. –
[in Hebrew].
bibliography
Hava, J.G., , Arabic-English Dictionary for the Use of Students, Beirut.
Harkavy, A., , Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen
Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg V, St. Petersburg.
Hirschfeld, H., , Arabic Chrestomathy in Hebrew Characters, with a Glossary,
London.
———, –, ‘An unknown grammatical work by Abul-Faraj Harun,’ Jewish
Quarterly Review, New Series , pp. –.
Joüon, P.—Muraoka, T., , A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, vols, Rome.
Khan, G., , ‘Vowel length and syllable structure in the Tiberian tradition of
Biblical Hebrew,’ Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –.
———, , ‘"Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and the early Karaite grammatical tradition,’
The Journal of Jewish Studies , pp. –.
———, , ‘The book of Hebrew grammar by the Karaite Joseph ben Noah,’
Journal of Semitic Studies , pp. –.
———, a, ‘The Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammatical thought,’ in Hor-
bury, W. (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh, pp. –
.
———, b, ‘The early Karaite grammatical tradition,’ in Targona Borrás, J.,
Sáenz-Badillos, A. (eds), Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.
Proceedings of the th EAJS Congress, Toledo, July, . Volume I: Biblical,
Rabbinical, and Medieval Studies, Leiden, pp. –.
———, a, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought:
Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Abū
Ya#qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūh. on the Hagiographa, Leiden.
———, b, Early Karaite Grammatical Texts, Atlanta.
———, , ‘Biblical exegesis and grammatical theory in the Karaite tradition,’
in Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, Oxford,
pp. –.
———, a, ‘The notion of transitive and intransitive actions in the early
Karaite grammatical tradition,’ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam ,
pp. –.
———, b, ‘The medieval Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar,’ Boletín de la
Asociacion Española de Orientalistas XXXVIII, pp. –.
Khan, G., Gallego, M.Á., Olszowy-Schlanger, J., , The Karaite Tradition of
Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form: A Critical Edition and
English Translation of al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ fı̄ al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya by Abū al-Farağ
Hārūn ibn al-Farağ, vols, Leiden.
Khan, G., , ‘Fragments from an early Karaite grammatical treatise,’ in Juu-
sola, H., et al. (eds), Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Hon-
our of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen, Helsinki, pp. –
.
———, , ‘The contextual status of words in the early Karaite tradition of
Hebrew grammar,’ in Maman, A., Fassberg, S.E., Breuer, Y. (eds), Sha#arei
Lashon; Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe
Bar-Asher, vols, Jerusalem, vol. , pp. –.
Klatzkin, J., –, Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et Veteris et
Recentioris, vols, Berlin.
bibliography
Lambert, M., , Termes Massorétiques, Prosodie Hébraïque et Autres Études;
Appendices à la Grammaire Hébraïque, Geneve.
Lane, E.W., , Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived from the Best and Most Copi-
ous Eastern Sources by Edward William Lane, vols, London.
Law, V., , Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages, Lon-
don.
Maman, A., , ‘Review of Zislin (),’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in
Hebrew].
———, a, ‘Medieval grammatical thought: Karaites versus Rabbanites,’ Lan-
guage Studies , pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, b, ‘The infinitive and the verbal noun according to Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn,’ in Bar-Asher, M. (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages
Presented to Shelomo Morag, Jerusalem, pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘The “#amal” theory in the grammatical thought of Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn,’ in Bar-Asher, M. (ed.), Massorot. Studies in Language Traditions and
Jewish Languages [Gideon Goldenberg Festschrift], Jerusalem, pp. – [in
Hebrew].
———, , ‘The Hebrew alphabet as a grammatical mnemotechnic framework:
Introduction to al-Kitāb al-Muštamil, Part III,’ Language Studies , pp. –
[in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Order and meaning in radical letters: Abū al-Faraj Hārūn’s Al-Kitāb
al-Muštamil, Part VII,’ Pe#amim , pp. – [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Karaite Hebrew,’ in Polliack, M. (ed.), Karaite Judaism, Leiden,
pp. –.
———, , Otzrot Lashon: The Hebrew Philology Manuscripts and Genizah
Fragments in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New
York, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
———, , ‘Karaite Hebrew grammatical thought—state of the art,’ in del
Valle, C., García-Jalón, S., Monferrer-Sala, J.P. (eds), Maimónides y Su Época,
Madrid.
Mann, J., , Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vols, Cincin-
nati.
Margoliouth, G., , ‘Ibn al-Hı̄tı̄’s Arabic chronicle of Karaite doctors,’ Jewish
Quarterly Review , pp. –.
Morag, S., , ‘The vocalization of Codex Reuchlinianus: Is “pre-Masoretic”
Bible pre-Masoretic?’ Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –.
———, , The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews, Jerusalem.
———, , The Vocalization Systems of Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, Mouton.
Nemoy, L., , Karaite Anthology, New Haven, London.
Neubauer, A., , Kitāb al-Us. ūl: The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu ’L-Walı̄d
Marwān ibn Janah, . Oxford.
Olszowy-Schlanger, J., , ‘Karaite linguistics: the “renaissance” of the Hebrew
language among early Karaite Jews, and contemporary linguistic theories,’
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft , pp. –.
———, , ‘Early Qaraite grammarians and their concept of the Hebrew root,’
Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage /, pp. –.
———, , ‘The “Explanation of Difficult Words” by "Abū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn
bibliography
al-Faraj,’ in Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts,
Oxford, pp. –.
Outhwaite, B., , A Descriptive Grammar of the Medieval Hebrew of the Cairo
Geniza Letters, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge (unpublished).
———, , ‘Karaite epistolary Hebrew: the letters of Toviyyah . ben Moshe,’ in
Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, Oxford,
pp. –.
Petri, H., , Das Verbum mit Suffixen im Hebräischen. . Teil: In den íéàéáð
íéðùàø, Leipzig.
Poznanski, S., a, ‘Aboul-Faradj Haroun ben al-Faradj le grammairien de
Jérusalem et son Mouschtamil,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –, –
.
———, b, ‘Karaite Miscellanies,’ Jewish Quarterly Review , pp. –.
———, , ‘Nouveaux renseignements sur Abou-l-Faradj Haroun ben al-
Faradj et ses ouvrages,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –.
Rozin, D., , ‘The meaning of the mnemonic formulae for the radical and
servile letters in Hebrew,’ Jewish Quarterly Review, Old Series , pp. –
.
Sáenz-Badillos, A., , Tešubot de Dunaš ben Labrat: Edición crítica y traduc-
ción española de Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Granada.
———, , Mĕnahem . ben Saruq/ Mahberet:
. Edición crítica e introducción de
Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Granada.
———, , A History of the Hebrew Language, Cambridge.
Schoeler, G., , The Oral and the Written in Early Islam, London.
Skoss, S.L., –, The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible known as
Kitāb Ğāmi# al-Alfāz. (Agron) of David ben Abraham al-Fāsı̄ the Karaite, vols,
New Haven.
Schwarb, G., Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah (Abū "l-Faraj Furqān b. Asad), Muqaddimat
Jawābāt al-Masā"il al-Mushakkala fı̄"l-Arayot, Arabic Text with Hebrew Trans-
lation and Glossary, (forthcoming).
Shaked, S., , ‘Two Judaeo-Iranian contributions,’ in Shaked, S. (ed.), Irano-
Judaica. Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout
the Ages, Jerusalem, pp. –.
Shivtiel, A., Niessen, F., , Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the
Cambridge Genizah Collections: Taylor-Schechter New Series, Cambridge.
Sperber, A., , The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed
Texts, vols, Leiden.
Stevenson, W.B., , Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Oxford.
Vidro, N., a, ‘A newly reconstructed Karaite work on Hebrew grammar,’
Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –.
———, b, Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar
Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrāniyya, PhD Thesis, University of
Cambridge (unpublished).
———, ‘Towards a critical edition of Kitāb al-#Uqūd fı̄ Tas. ārı̄f al-Luġa al-#Ibrā-
niyya,’ in Gallego, M.Á., Monferrer-Sala, J.P. (eds), The Semitic Languages
of Jewish Intellectual Production. Memorial volume for Dr. Friedrich Niessen
(forthcoming).
bibliography
Wright, W., –, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, vols, Cambridge
(rd. edition).
Yannai, Y., Ofer, Y., , ‘ “We-simanak”: simanim ba-lašon ha-#ibrit,’ Leshon-
enu la-#Am (), pp. –. ¯ ¯
Yeivin, I., , Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, Missoula.
———, , The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian
Vocalization, vols, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
Zislin, M.N., , ‘Chapter from a grammatical work al-Kafi by Abu-l-Faradž
Xarun ibn al-Faradž,’ Palyestinskiy Sbornik , pp. – [in Russian].
———, , ‘Leningrad fragments from Kitab al-Kafi by Abu-l-Faradž Xarun
ibn al-Faradž (XIth cent.),’ Semitskie yazyki, pp. – [in Russian].
———, a, ‘Chapter from the second part of a grammatical work al-Kafi by
Abu-l-Faradž Xarun ibn al-Faradž (XIth cent.),’ Kratkie Soobšeniya Instituta
Narodov Azii , pp. – [in Russian].
———, b, ‘Abu-l-Faradž Xarun on the conjugation of Hebrew verb,’ Kratkie
Soobšeniya Instituta Narodov Azii , pp. – [in Russian].
———, c, ‘Eastern school of Jewish grammarians in X–XII cent. (Résumé),’
Semitskie yazyki , pp. – [in Russian].
———, , Me"or #Ayin, Moscow.
INDEX OF SOURCES
Biblical Verses Lev. :,
Lev. :,
Genesis Lev. :,
Gen. :, Lev. :,
Gen. :, Lev. :,
Gen. :, Lev. :,
Gen. :, Lev. :,
Gen. :,
Gen. :, , , , , Numbers
Gen. :, Num. :,
Gen. :, , Num. :,
Gen. :, Num. :,
Gen. :, Num. :,
Gen. :, Num. :,
Gen. :, Num. :,
Gen. :,
Gen. :, Deutoronomium
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, , Deut. :, ,
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, Deut. :,
Gen. :, ,
Joshua
Exodus Josh. :, , , ,
Ex. :, Josh. :,
Ex. :, Josh. :,
Ex. :, , , , Josh. :,
Ex. :,
Ex. :, Judges
Ex. :, , , Judg. :, ,
Ex. :, , , , Judg. :,
Ex. :, , Judg. :,
Ex. :, Judg. :, , ,
Ex. :, , , Judg. :,
Ex. :, Judg. :, , ,
Judg. :,
Leviticus Judg. :,
Lev. :, n Judg. :, ,
index of sources
Samuel Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :, ,
Sam. :, , Isa. :,
Sam. :, , Isa. :, ,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, , Isa. :, ,
Isa. :, ,
Samuel Isa. :,
Sam. :, , Isa. :, ,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :, ,
Sam. :, Isa. :,
Sam. :, Isa. :, , ,
Sam. :, n
Sam. :, , Isa. :, ,
Isa. :, , ,
Kings Isa. :,
Kings :, Isa. :, , ,
Kings :, Isa. :,
Kings :, , Isa. :,
Isa. :,
Kings
Kings :, Jeremiah
Kings :, Jer. :, n
Kings :, Jer. :,
Jer. :,
Isaiah Jer. :,
Isa. :, Jer. :, ,
Isa. :, Jer. :,
Isa. :, Jer. :, n
Isa. :, Jer. :, ,
Isa. :, Jer. :,
Isa. :, , , , Jer. :, , ,
Jer. :,
Isa. :, Jer. :,
Isa. :, Jer. :,
Isa. :, , , , Jer. :,
Jer. :,
index of sources
Jer. :, Micah
Jer. :, Micah :,
Jer. :, Micah :, ,
Jer. :, Micah :,
Jer. :,
Jer. :, , Nahum
Jer. :, Nahum :, , ,
Jer. :, Nahum :,
Jer. :,
Jer. :, Habakkuk
Jer. :, , Hab. :,
Jer. :, , , , Hab. :,
Jer. :,
Jer. :, Zephaniah
Jer. :, Zeph. :,
Jer. :, Zeph. :,
Jer. :, ,
Zechariah
Ezekiel Zech. :,
Ezek. :,
Ezek. :, Psalms
Ezek. :, Ps. :, n
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ezek. :, Ps. :, ,
Ezek. :, Ps. :, –
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ezek. :, Ps. :, n
Ezek. :, n, , Ps. :, n
Ps. :, ,
Ezek. :, , Ps. :, ,
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ezek. :, , Ps. :, , ,
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ezek. :, , , Ps. :,
Ezek. :, , Ps. :, n
Ezek. :, Ps. :,
Ps. :,
Hosea Ps. :,
Hos. :, , Ps. :, , , , , ,
Hos. :, Ps. :, ,
Ps. :,
Amos Ps. :,
Amos :, Ps. :,
Ps. :,
Jonah Ps. :, , ,
Jonah :, , Ps. :, ,
index of sources
Ps. :, , n Job :, ,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, , , Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, n Job :, , n,
Ps. :, , ,
Ps. :, n Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, , Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, Job :, ,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, , , n Job :,
Ps. :, , , Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, , Job :, n
Ps. :, , n Job :,
Ps. :, Job :,
Ps. :, Job :, ,
Ps. :, Job :,
Proverbs Song of Songs
Prov. :, Cant. :,
Prov. :,
Prov. :, , , n Ruth
Prov. :, Ruth :,
Prov. :, , , Ruth :,
Prov. :, Ruth :, n
Prov. :, , , Ruth :,
Prov. :, Ruth :, ,
Prov. :, n Ruth :, , n
Prov. :,
Prov. :, Lamentations
Lament. :,
Job Lament. :, , n
Job :, Lament. :,
Job :, Lament. :, , n
Job :, , , Lament. :,
Job :, Lament. :, ,
Job :,
Job :, , Ecclesiastes
Job :, Eccl. :,
Job :, Eccl. :, n
Job :, Eccl. :,
Job :, Eccl. :,
Job :, , , Eccl. :,
index of sources
Esther T-S Ar. .,
Esth. :, T-S Ar. .,
Esth. :, T-S Ar. ., , n,
n
Daniel T-S NS .,
Dan. :, JTS ENA .,
Dan. :, JTS ENA .–, ,
Dan. :, BL Or. E, , , , , n,
Dan. :, n, n
Dan. :, ,
Manuscripts of works other than
Ezra Kitāb al-#Uqūd
Ezra :, T-S K.,
Ezra :, T-S NS .,
T-S NS .,
Chronicles T-S AS .,
Chron. :, Mosseri I..,
Chron. :, , , JTS ENA ., , , ,
n, , n,
Chronicles JTS ENA .–,
Chron. :, JTS ENA .–, , , ,
Chron. :, n, n, , n,
Chron. :, , ,
Chron. :, , n Bodl. MS Hebr. d., , n
FEA I , n, n
Manuscripts FEA I , n, n, n,
n, n, , n
Manuscripts of Kitāb al-#Uqūd FEA I , n, n, n,
FEA I , , , , , n, n
, , FEA I , n
FEA I , , , , , , , FEA I , n
passim II Firk. Arab.-Evr. , n
FEA I , , II Firk. Evr. C , n
FEA I , , , , ,
n
GENERAL INDEX
he-#abar lah, , n amr bi-yod,
¯ lahā, , n
al-#abar al-amr lahā, , n
he-#a¯bar lahem, , n al-amr lahum, n
¯ lahum, , n
al-#abar analogy, , base of, –
¯
Abraham ibn Ezra, #aqd, #uqūd, –, , , ,
Abū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj, ,
, –, , –. See also Arabic literature, , , ,
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄, al-Kitāb al-
Muštamil Aramaic, ,
on primary verb form, n arba# hurūf
. as. liyya,
on principles of verbal derivation, arba# mukarrara,
as. l,
on status of letters and vowels, as. l yuqās #alayh,
, asmā" zāhira,
.
on system of symbols, , , , attribute,
, , , , , attributive construction,
terminology of, –
on particular verbal forms, , , beginners, , , , , ,
, –, ,
Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūh, . , , binyanim, , , ,
. See also Diqduq Byzantium, , –
active participle
in description of verbal paradigm, Codex Leningradensis, n
–, , compensatory lengthening,
for establishing imperatives, , compound forms,
– conjoined form, , , , , ,
mnemonics for prefixes of, , –, ,
connective,
of hypothetical final heh impera- contextual gender,
tives,
of passive imperatives, dagesh, , –
with pronominal suffixes, damā"ir,
.
vocalization of m.sg. participles David ben Abraham al-Fāsı̄, , ,
of geminated niph#al verbs, , , , ,
– derek,
agent, , , , . See also ¯
derivative forms, , –, –
noun of agent , , , ,
#alāma, , n, didactic strategies, , , , ,
#alāmat al-#abar, , –, , –
#alāmat al-amr,¯ Diqduq, . See also Abū Ya#qūb
amr bi-ġayr yod, Yūsuf Ibn Nūh.
amr bi-ra"sih, grammatical terminology in,
general index
Diqduq (cont.) hataph
. patah, . ,
on imperative in its primary hataph
. qamas. ,
form, hataph
. segol,
on plural of nouns, n Hidāyat al-Qāri", n,
and system of symbols, n, – hiph#il, , ,
first guttural, , ,
translation principles in, n first yod (originally first waw), ,
on verbal classification, ,
on particular verbal forms, , , first nun, , ,
, , –, , n, geminated, –, , ,
, n, –, , jussive (without yod), , , ,
, , , , , , , –
disjoined form, , , , , , with aramaising gemination of
the first radical, ,
Dunaš ben Labrat., indicative (with yod), , , –
, , , , , –
elision, , , . See also letter, middle weak, –, , , ,
elided , –
emphatic element, originally first yod,
Eškol hak-Kop̄er, pausal, ,
with prefix aleph instead of heh,
far#,
fi#l fı̄ al-ġayr, , quadriliteral, ,
fi#l fı̄ al-nafs, fi#l fı̄ nafsih, , , with retraction of tone,
n, with shewa on the second radical,
fı̄ al-nafs ġayr muta#addin, , , ,
furtive patah, . , n, –, strong, ,
third guttural, , , , , ,
future –
in description of verbal paradigm, third weak, ,
–, , hireq,
. ,
for establishing imperatives, , hitpa#el, , , , , –, ,
– , , , , . See also
mnemonics for vocalization of infi#āl, ifti#āl
future prefixes, , with assimilation of the prefix
with pronominal suffixes, – taw, , , , , –,
n
vocalization of sg. future prefix, first sibilant, , –, , ,
,
with prefix aleph instead of heh,
ġayr muta#addin, ,
genitive construction, second guttural, , , , , ,
gezarot, , , ,
grammatical commentaries, , strong, ,
grammatical commentary in Judaeo- third aleph,
Persian, , n, , third guttural, ,
Greek, third weak, ,
general index
hitpalpel, as primary verb form, ,
hitpo#el, , n,
with assimilation of the prefix with pronominal suffixes, –
taw,
first sibilant, sample, , –
third guttural, second,
holam,
. , , , , , structurally identical, , –,
hoph#al, , , –
third weak, –, , terminology for, , n
hurūf
. as. liyya, types of, –
hurūf
. jawhariyya, in verbal classification, , –,
hurūf
. mabniyya, , –
hurūf
. musta#mala, , with yod, –
al-hurūf
. al-neqebot, without yod, , –
hurūf ¯
rākiba, , infi#āl, , , –
.
al-hurūf
. al-zekarim, infinitive, , –, n, –
¯ , –,
jawhar, , n initial item,
Jerusalem, , , , –, n, , intransitive verbs, , –, –,
ifti#āl, , , –, Iran,
imperative(s) Iraq, ,
alternative, , –, Islamic education,
characteristic vowel of, – ism fā#il alladı̄. lā min tas. rı̄f,
classification of by mnemonics, ism fā#il laysa ma" hūd. min al-tas. rı̄f,
– n ˘
as derivational base, , ism fā#il ma" hūd. min al-amr wa-l-
in description of verbal paradigm, ˘
tas. rı̄f, n
–, , jussive, ,
establishing, , , –, –
, –, ka-l-as. lı̄,
first, Karaite grammar
with the function of infinitives, classical, –,
– early, –, , , n, ,
guttural, –, –, , n, , ,
which have no past, , , , pedagogical, , , –
, – scholarly, ,
hypothetical, , n, , , Kitāb Jāmi# al-Alfāz, . , . See also
, n, , –, David ben Abraham al-Fāsı̄
, –, , , , al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ fı̄ al-Luġa al-
, n, n, #Ibrāniyya, , n, , n.
inferred from jussive forms, , See also Abū al-Faraj Hārūn
, on compensatory lengthening,
inferred from pausal forms, –
, description of verbal paradigms
in its primary form, in,
passive, n, –, mnemonics in,
general index
al-Kitāb al-Kāfı̄ fı̄ al-Luġa al- lexicology, , , , ,
#Ibrāniyya (cont.) luġa,
on morphological pattern,
as source of Kitāb al-#Uqūd, , , ma#ase be-nep̄eš,
– ma#ase be-zulat han-nep̄eš,
on status of letters, n, , ma#ase be-zulato,
ma#nā,
system of symbols in, , , Masorah Magna, n
n, , –, , , , Masoretic literature, , , n
, , , , n meaning, , –
on particular verbal forms, , Menahem. ben Saruq,
, , , , , n, Me"or #Ayin, , –,
n, , description of verbal paradigm in,
on verbal adjectives, n , , , , , ,
al-Kitāb al-Muštamil #alā al- mnemonics in,
Us. ūl wa-l-Fus. ūl fı̄ al-Luġa al- model analyses of Biblical
#Ibrāniyya, , n, n, n, passages in, n
n. See also Abū al-Faraj pronominal suffixes on verb
Hārūn forms in, –
didactic elements in, rules of derivational relations in,
on status of letters, n , , , , , ,
system of symbols in, , n, –,
, –, , , –, on status of letters, , n
on verbal adjectives, n system of symbols in, , , ,
on particular verbal forms, –, , n, , ,
Kutub al-Luġa, n, n on particular verbal forms, , ,
, , n, ,
lāzim, mnemonics, , n, –, –
letters , –,
added, , , morphological base, , n
affixed, , , , , , morphological form, , –, ,
auxiliary, , , , –, ,
, morphological pattern, , , ,
built-in, , , –, , –, , , , ,
elided, , –, . See also Moshe ibn Ezra,
elision mudāf,
.
feminine, , , – muhtas. ar, , n
masculine, , , , – ˘ htasar, , n, , ,
al-Mu .
non-root, , – ˘ asliyya,
mulūk .
quiescent, , mulūk musta#mala,
root, , , , n, –, muta#addin,
, , n, ,
servile, , , niph#al, , , , , , , ,
stable, , , , . See also infi#āl
status of, –, , first guttural, , , –, ,
lexical class, , –, , ,
n, first yod,
general index
first nun, third guttural, , , ,
first resh, , –, third weak, ,
first waw, , , n particle, , , ,
geminated, , , , –, parts of speech, ,
passive participle
middle weak, , , , , , in description of verbal paradigm,
pausal, , , , – of middle weak verbs in pa#al,
with retraction of tone, , , –,
second guttural, , of passive imperatives,
strong, with pronominal suffixes,
third aleph, past
third guttural, , , , characteristic vowel of, –,
third weak, , in description of verbal paradigm,
nominal sentence, –, ,
noun, , , , predicting the vowel of, –,
of agent, , n
defective, terminology for, , n, n
of instrument, of third aleph verbs, –
plural, n for verbal classification, , ,
verbal, –
vocalization of m.sg. past of pi#el
object suffixes, , , –, – and hitpa#el, –
, –, patah,. , , , , –, ,
object types, , , –,
oral tradition, – patient, , , ,
origins of language, , n pedagogical strategies. See didactic
ot ne#ebad, strategies
¯ people of the language, n, ,
pa#al, , –, , , ,
with aramaising gemination of permutative element,
the first radical, , Persia,
first aleph, Persian,
first guttural, Persian grammarians, , –
first nun, , , , – phonetic processes, , , , ,
first yod, , , n, – , ,
geminated, , , , , , , pi#el, ,
, m.sg. past of, –,
m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms lacking dagesh in a non-guttural,
with a short qamas. under the , , , –
first radical, , with object suffixes, –
middle weak, , , , –, quadriliteral,
second guttural, , , , ,
primary vowel of the imperative, strong,
stative, , third aleph,
strong, , third guttural,
third aleph, third weak, , , ,
general index
pi#lel, shewa, n, , , , , ,
pilpel, , , –
po#el, , , – short qamas. , , , , ,
geminated, shuruq, , , ,
middle weak, al-s. ifa al-mušabbiha bi-ism al-fā#il,
strong, n
third weak, s. ı̄ġa,
predicate, siman, simanim, , n,
primary form, has. -s. iwwuy lah, , n
pronoun, , . See also object has. -s. iwwuy lahem, n
suffixes has. -s. iwwuy le-neqeba, n
pu#al, , ¯
has. -s. iwwuy le-zekarim, n
pausal, ¯
stress, , , , , –, .
second guttural and resh, , , See also tone
, – structural approach, , –,
third guttural, ,
third weak, , – substrate, n,
syntax, , , , , , , , ,
qamas. , , , ,
qešer, qišronim, , , n, n
qiššaron, n tābit,
quadriliteral verbs, , , , – ¯tafa#lal,
, , –, tafā#ul,
qubbus. , , , tafa##ul,
Targum Onqelos,
Rabbanite grammatical tradition, , tas. rı̄f,
, , , tena"y,
Rabbinic literature, tiph#el,
raphe, , tone, , , . See also stress
re"ayah, topic-comment dichotomy,
reconstruction of verb forms, , Toviyyah
. ben Moshe,
– transitive verbs, , –, , ,
regularization of grammatical ,
features, , treatise on the Hebrew nouns,
ribāt. , , , , as source of Me"or #Ayin, ,
root. See letters, root treatise on the Hebrew verbs,
root of lexical class, , n description of verbal paradigms
in, , , , , –, ,
Sa#adya Gaon, n, n
samā#, pronominal suffixes on verb
secondary form, forms in, –
segol, , , , , , , , as source of Kitāb al-#Uqūd, –
,
semantics, , , –, , , on verbal classification, n
, , n, , , on particular verbal forms, ,
s. ere, , , , , , , , , –, ,
, , true and pseudo-verbs,
general index
verbal adjective, , n root, –
vocalization stable, , ,
archaic Tiberian,
Babylonian, –, wazn,
non-standard Tiberian, , word order, ,
Tiberian, n, , , Yehudah Hadassi,
vowel Yehudah Hayyūj,
. ,
auxiliary, , , – Yehudah ibn Bal#am,
long (Hebrew), Yonah ibn Janāh,. , n
radical-like, yu" had. samā#an, –
˘
You might also like
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeFrom EverandThe Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (5822)
- The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreFrom EverandThe Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (1093)
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItFrom EverandNever Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (852)
- Grit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceFrom EverandGrit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (590)
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceFrom EverandHidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (898)
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeFrom EverandShoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (540)
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersFrom EverandThe Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (349)
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureFrom EverandElon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (474)
- Her Body and Other Parties: StoriesFrom EverandHer Body and Other Parties: StoriesRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (822)
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)From EverandThe Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (122)
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerFrom EverandThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (271)
- The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingFrom EverandThe Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (403)
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyFrom EverandThe World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (2259)
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaFrom EverandDevil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (266)
- The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)From EverandThe Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (98)
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryFrom EverandA Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (231)
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnFrom EverandTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (234)
- N T Wright THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD PDFDocument276 pagesN T Wright THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD PDFOscar Javier Perez Gaona100% (2)
- On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealFrom EverandOn Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (74)
- Pauline Christology G D FeeDocument734 pagesPauline Christology G D FeeOscar Javier Perez Gaona100% (19)
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaFrom EverandThe Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (45)
- Chester Beatty Papyri (ABD)Document6 pagesChester Beatty Papyri (ABD)Oscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- Arabic Teaching YourselfDocument403 pagesArabic Teaching Yourselfdbbircs94% (65)
- Teaching Singing and Voice To Children and AdolescentsDocument16 pagesTeaching Singing and Voice To Children and AdolescentsAvelyn Chua94% (16)
- The Historical Jesus PDFDocument428 pagesThe Historical Jesus PDFOscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- Archivos Militares (Reel 100) US Military Trial Reports 299-319Document3,369 pagesArchivos Militares (Reel 100) US Military Trial Reports 299-319Oscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- TynBull 1991 42-1-09 Clarke CorinthianErastusInscriptionDocument6 pagesTynBull 1991 42-1-09 Clarke CorinthianErastusInscriptionOscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- Hort - Hebrews 1 8 (c1876)Document14 pagesHort - Hebrews 1 8 (c1876)Oscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- THE Evangelical Quarterly: Vol. LVI No.4 October, 1984 ISSN 0014-3367Document10 pagesTHE Evangelical Quarterly: Vol. LVI No.4 October, 1984 ISSN 0014-3367Oscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- The Inanimate Creation & Science ResearchDocument69 pagesThe Inanimate Creation & Science ResearchOscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- Plate TectonicsDocument40 pagesPlate TectonicsOscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- The Inanimate Creation & Science ResearchDocument70 pagesThe Inanimate Creation & Science ResearchOscar Javier Perez GaonaNo ratings yet
- 1 - M30 S5P1 - Applied Linguistics - Lesson 1 - Pr. ZaidDocument5 pages1 - M30 S5P1 - Applied Linguistics - Lesson 1 - Pr. ZaidKai Kokoro100% (1)
- Indonesian Phrases and Common SentencesDocument4 pagesIndonesian Phrases and Common Sentencesnadheef mubarakNo ratings yet
- Essay 3 ReflectionDocument2 pagesEssay 3 Reflectionapi-704699003No ratings yet
- Lesson 6Document3 pagesLesson 6KennyYangNo ratings yet
- Business CommunicationDocument36 pagesBusiness Communicationsabbir ahmedNo ratings yet
- Unit Iv Types of Communication: Intrapersonal Communication Session 1: Understanding The SelfDocument20 pagesUnit Iv Types of Communication: Intrapersonal Communication Session 1: Understanding The SelfRoseAnne Joy Robelo CabicoNo ratings yet
- Quantification of Speech Rhythm in Canadian French in A Minority SettingDocument42 pagesQuantification of Speech Rhythm in Canadian French in A Minority SettingGalina AlexeevaNo ratings yet
- Dynamic AssessmentDocument13 pagesDynamic AssessmentMarta DelgadoNo ratings yet
- Rubrics For Written ActivityDocument1 pageRubrics For Written ActivityDianne Seno BasergoNo ratings yet
- Creative Writing Q1W3W4Document39 pagesCreative Writing Q1W3W4Jhun Ar-Ar Roa RamosNo ratings yet
- The Correlation Between Students' Vocabulary Mastery, Self Confidence and Their Speaking AbilityDocument6 pagesThe Correlation Between Students' Vocabulary Mastery, Self Confidence and Their Speaking Abilitybintang pamungkasNo ratings yet
- Guided Discovery ProcedureDocument3 pagesGuided Discovery Procedurekazpat2No ratings yet
- WLP 6Document6 pagesWLP 6Aaron Manuel Munar100% (1)
- Ellie Brown: ProfileDocument3 pagesEllie Brown: ProfileShahbaz AhmadNo ratings yet
- Life Vision Elem Gram Worksheet A U3Document1 pageLife Vision Elem Gram Worksheet A U3ale_neiraNo ratings yet
- Content AnalysisDocument4 pagesContent AnalysisSamuel ChukwumaNo ratings yet
- Linguistics - WikipediaDocument30 pagesLinguistics - WikipediaMuhammad ShaheerNo ratings yet
- Brief History of Different Systems of GrammarDocument40 pagesBrief History of Different Systems of GrammarAnonymous 9hu7fl100% (1)
- Level of Speaking Anxiety of First Year Education Students and Their Preferred Pedagogical StrategiesDocument16 pagesLevel of Speaking Anxiety of First Year Education Students and Their Preferred Pedagogical StrategiesPsychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary JournalNo ratings yet
- Prof. Alicia Hitos Pérez - 1º BachilleratoDocument10 pagesProf. Alicia Hitos Pérez - 1º Bachilleratorox purdeaNo ratings yet
- GENRE OF LITERATURE-printDocument5 pagesGENRE OF LITERATURE-printseptiNo ratings yet
- Lesson Plan 10 - Writer's Workshop-Keep The Pencil in Your Hand/Silence The It's No Good Voice Motivational SetDocument2 pagesLesson Plan 10 - Writer's Workshop-Keep The Pencil in Your Hand/Silence The It's No Good Voice Motivational Setapi-395145532No ratings yet
- Remedial Reading ProposalDocument4 pagesRemedial Reading ProposalRenita E. Laranang100% (3)
- Teaching and Learning Literacy Reading and Writing... - (Chapter 10 Writing Electronic Texts)Document17 pagesTeaching and Learning Literacy Reading and Writing... - (Chapter 10 Writing Electronic Texts)lithium04No ratings yet
- English WW Q4Document3 pagesEnglish WW Q4Aris Carlo MislangNo ratings yet
- Simple Present TenseDocument4 pagesSimple Present TenseGemma MargalloNo ratings yet
- Criteria C B A AD: Score Scale ScoreDocument2 pagesCriteria C B A AD: Score Scale ScoreDanna Valentina Obispo NinaNo ratings yet
- A Study On Using Newspapers in Enhance The Language Skills Among School StudentsDocument3 pagesA Study On Using Newspapers in Enhance The Language Skills Among School StudentsIJMSRTNo ratings yet
