Thread by @drchiphardy

A nerdy but practical thread 🧵 on paradigm (i.e. patterning) roots in Biblical Hebrew:
1/*

https://twitter.com/adamcmccollum/status/1640338742652141570

As @adamcmccollum notes and Rubin explores, the paradigm root is not uniform in BH grammar.
academia.edu/2603536/The_Pa…
2/*

ON ONE HAND, BH verb morphology is elegant & discrete. Person+Gender+Number inflect with verbal affixes. Ten forms make up the Prefix Conjugation (yiqtol/imperfective & wayyiqtol), nine forms the Suffix Conjugation (qatal/perfective & wəqatal).
3/*
hebrew.laits.utexas.edu/drupal/themes/…

Four imperatives (derivatives of Prefix Conj.), two non-finite verbs (classically "infinitives") & eight active±passive participles complete the basic conjugations.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the verbal-stem morphology and semantics are complex.

4/*

The term, verbal stems or binyanim (בנינים), is used to describe a morpho-semantic feature common to Semitic languages. Each stem is formed with a unique pattern of root vowels and consonant elongation. Each language employs a different paradigm root.
britannica.com/topic/Semitic-…
5/*

As a heuristic (reality is more complicated!):
—The ROOT encodes the basic verbal semantics.
—The CONJUGATION provides TAM (tense±aspect±mood).
—The AFFIXES inflect for PGN (person±gender+number).
—The STEM signals the interaction of Aktionsart, valency & voice.
6/*

Question:
Why is the Biblical Hebrew paradigm root debated?

Simple Answer:
No lexeme in the Hebrew Bible provides evidence for all forms.
7/*

The permutations of verb forms are dizzying!

Crude Summation:
7 basic stems x (10 + 9 + 4 + 2 + 8 conjugations) = 231 forms

(N.B. a few more sundry paradigm forms exist, and some additional stems occur with certain, particularly middle-weak, roots)
8/*
logos.com/images/product…

What's more, roots with all seven basic #Hebrew stems—Qal/Paal (G), Niphal (N), Piel (D), Pual (Dp), Hiphil (C), Hophal (Cp), Hitpael (tD)—are exceedingly rare.
9/*

Of the more than 1600 unique verb roots in BH, only FIVE roots are found in ALL seven basic stems (בקע, גלה, חלה, ידע, פקד), and NONE of these lexemes include all forms.
Each of these five roots include forms with abnormal phonologies, i.e. none is the ideal paradigm verb!
10/*

The root פקד may be the obvious choice (popularized in David Kimhi's מכלול), but Rubin notes the morphological issues, particularly the lack of doubling with the reflexive (≈ tD?) stem: הִתְפָּקֵד ~ יִתְפָּקֵד
Also, its semantic range is notoriously quite diverse!
11/*

Beyond the data, another fundamental morphological issue complicates the paradigm verb choice:

Put simply: should the root be more phonologically minimalistic or maximalistic with regard to its patterning?
12/*

(1) One could follow a minimal, simplified verbal paradigm using a root with consonants that avoid phonological variation (lenition, vowel lowering, restriction on elongation, i.e. gutturals).
E.g. קטל or משׁל (or maybe שׁמר)
13/*

Or (2) one could be more maximal and employ a root indicating, e.g., BeGaDKePaT (בֶּגֶ״ד כֶּפֶ״ת) lenition.
E.g. כתב
14/*

It would seem that the other paradigm-verb options provide too much inconsistency between these two extremes. The main examples include: פעל, למד, ידע, פקד, קבץ, שׁמע
15/*

Finally, others have taken a different approach altogether and teach a different paradigm root for each stem.
G, N, C, Cp: שׁמר
D, Dp: דבר
Dt: הלך
See, e.g., Jo Ann Hackett, A Basic Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Hendrickson, 2010)
hendricksonrose.com/p/a-basic-intr…
16/*

This pedagogical approach favors actual BH forms and meanings, but it can be difficult for some to make broad morphological and semantic comparisons across the paradigm.
(My students have leveled this criticism numerous times over my 12+ years of using Hackett's grammar.)
17/*

IMPORTANT:
All of this points up the various grammatical USES for verb paradigms: (a) pedagogy, (b) morphological reference, (c) semantic analysis, and/or (d) comparative phonology. Depending on one's needs and purposes, different roots can be more or less beneficial.
18/*

In sum, Rubin's conclusion is apt and pragmatic: "no root is ideal...and it is unlikely to change anytime soon" (p. 39).
19/end