Some Notes on Consonant Reduplication in Hebrew (in Hebrew) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Consonant Identity and Consonant Copy: The Segmental and Prosodic Structure of Hebrew Reduplication
Linguistic Inquiry, 2006
The article addresses two issues regarding Hebrew reduplication: (a) the distinction between reduplicated and nonreduplicated stems with identical consonants (e.g., minen ‘to apportion’ vs. mimen ‘to finance’), and (b) the patterns of reduplication (C1VC2VC2C, C1VC2C3VC3C,C1VC2C1CVC2C, and C1C2VC3C2CVC3C). These issues are studied from a surface point of view, accounting for speakers’ capacity to parse forms with identical consonants regardless of their base. It is argued that the grammar constructed by the learner on the basis of structural relations (base – output) can also serve for parsing surface forms without reference to a base.
Innovative Elements in Newly Formed Hebrew Four-Consonantal Verbal Roots
The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of four-consonantal verbal roots in Modern Hebrew (MH), and to show and explain the processes that cause this expansion. The ways in which new verbal roots are created will be demonstrated in section 1, followed by the formation of four-consonantal verbal roots by the addition of an initial ˀ, t, or š and by duplication of consonants in section 2. Section 3 will be devoted to the explanation of these expansions: the origins of the new initial consonants ˀ, t, and duplication in four-consonantal verbs may be based on derivational and inflectional factors as well as on historical processes. The newly formed first radical š can be explained by historical development, but it might also hint at the interaction between functional and morphological elements. The fourth section will address the number of templates in Hebrew, and will conclude that it is the structure of the four-consonantal root that modifies meanings rather than the template itself.
The Typology of Nonintegrated Words in Hebrew
Many Hebrew words are unique depending on their foreign etymology as well as on social and psychological variables like substandard registers, children's game words, and emotional words; they form special word classes in the lexicon. The most common ways for word formation in Modern Hebrew morphology are root and pattern, stem and affix, and two stem combinations. Their inflectional paradigms are very predictable. Other derivational waysacronym and blendsare rarer and display irregular patterns. In this paper, I postulate nine linguistic features to distinguish between the various Hebrew words, and establish the different layers of the Hebrew lexicon. The findings lead to the discussion concerning the structure of the lexicon and the status of nonintegrated words in Hebrew.
Journal of Linguistics, 2003
It is well known that Semitic languages restrict the co-occurrence of identical and homorganic consonants in the root. The IDENTITY HYPOTHESIS attributes this pattern to distinct constraints on identical and nonidentical homorganic consonants (e.g. McCarthy 1986, 1994). Conversely, the SIMILARITY HYPOTHESIS captures these restrictions in terms of a single monotonic ban on perceived similarity (Pierrehumbert 1993; Frisch, Broe & Pierrehumbert 1997). We compare these accounts by examining the acceptability of roots with identical and homorganic consonants at their end. If well-formedness is an inverse, monotonic function of similarity, then roots with identical (fully similar) consonants should be less acceptable than roots with homorganic (partially similar) consonants. Contrary to this prediction, Hebrew speakers prefer root final identity to homorganicity. Our results suggest that speakers encode long-distance identity among root radicals in a manner that is distinct from feature s...
Language, 1982
Preface ix Notes on Transcription 8c Notation xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Descriptive Framework 4 Notes 6 CHAPTER TWO: SOME ASPECTS OF MODERN HEBREW PHONOLOGY by Shmuel Bolozky 2.0 Introduction 11 2.1 Voicing Assimilation: A Phonetically Conditioned Alternation 16 2.2 Some Morphologically, Categorially, and Lexically Restricted Alternations 16 2.2.1 Alternations confined to specific morphemes 17 2.2.2 Minor rules within a particular class of morphemes 17 2.2.3 More productive rules confined to a few classes of morphemes 19 2.2.4 Stem-final vowel lowering: a surface generalization in the verb system 23 2.2.5 Alternations confined to the verb system 26 2.2.6 Alternations confined to non-verbal forms: the case of a-deletion 29 2.2.7 Spirantization in Modern Hebrew 33 2.3 Phonetic Constraints and Related Rules 2.3.1 The class of low "gutturals" 2.3.2 The class of so no rant consonants 45 2.3.3 Consonant gemination 48 2.4 Assignment of Word-Stress 2.4.1 Stress in the "segolate" class of nouns 51 2.4.2 Verb stress 2.4.3 Influence of Yiddish stress 2.4.4 Variation in child speech 2.4.5 Stress in borrowed nouns and adjectives 61 Notes 64
From Discontinuous to Linear Word Formation in Modern Hebrew
The paper shows that linear word formation is strengthened in Modern Hebrew and applies to verbs as well. After exemplifying root-and-pattern discontinuous word formation, other word formation techniques are introduced. Linear formation includes stem-and-affix, word compounding or multistem-concatenation, multi-stem blend, and acronyms, either orthographic or phonetic. Reduplication and base unanalyzed words are also included in word formation because of the phonetic adaptation of such words. As in nouns, verbs can be formed nowadays linearly by copying the consonant clusters and vowel patterns into the verb system, e.g. hi¡pric "splashed" from ¡pric "splash" in the hif'il pattern, laxrop "to sleep" from xrop "sleep, snore" in the pa'al pattern. Once inserted into the verb system, these verbs behave like any other root-andpattern derived verbs.