Knench/Ancient: Difference between revisions

Line 83:

The Biblical feminine singular ending ''*-ā́'' became unstressed ''-a'', and the stress in feminine singular nouns in ''-a'' shifted to penultimate (by analogy with masculine singular adjectives and 3fs perfect verbs). Other possible feminine endings are ''-t'', ''-θ'' or ''-δ''. Eventually stress shifted away from gender/number suffixes across the board: The regular masculine and feminine plural endings were unstressed ''-im'' and unstressed ''-oδ'', from Biblical Hebrew ''*-ī́m'' and ''*-ṓt''.

~~Sometimes~~ ''-a'' is found where Standard Jewish Hebrew has ''-t''~~, and vice versa~~.

The ending ''-a'' is more common than in Jewish Hebrew; sometimes ''-a'' is found where Standard Jewish Hebrew has ''-t''.

The construct state was not entirely predictable but not as "hard" as Tiberian Hebrew. Feminine singular nouns in ''-a'' had a construct state in ''-aδ''.

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 The Biblical feminine singular ending ''*-ā́'' became unstressed ''-a'', and the stress in feminine singular nouns in ''-a'' shifted to penultimate (by analogy with masculine singular adjectives and 3fs perfect verbs). Other possible feminine endings are ''-t'', ''-θ'' or ''-δ''. Eventually stress shifted away from gender/number suffixes across the board: The regular masculine and feminine plural endings were unstressed ''-im'' and unstressed ''-oδ'', from Biblical Hebrew ''*-ī́m'' and ''*-ṓt''.
-Sometimes ''-a'' is found where Standard Jewish Hebrew has ''-t'', and vice versa.
+The ending ''-a'' is more common than in Jewish Hebrew; sometimes ''-a'' is found where Standard Jewish Hebrew has ''-t''.
 The construct state was not entirely predictable but not as "hard" as Tiberian Hebrew. Feminine singular nouns in ''-a'' had a construct state in ''-aδ''.