An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

31.7 Nun-Bearing Forms
a Some non-perfective forms in Biblical Hebrew bear an atypical nun. 44 As with other
non-perfective forms, it is easier to figure out where these might have come from
than[Page 515] how they work in Hebrew. One set of them, the paragogics, is related
to the yaqtulu/yaqtul problem treated in 29.4 and 31.1.1; the other set, the energies, is
probably related to a set of non-perfective energic forms found in Amarna Canaanite
and Ugaritic. The etymology of the Hebrew forms can be grasped if we review some
features of the Arabic non-perfective paradigm. 45
indicative jussive heavy energic light energic
2 m.s. taqtulu taqtul taqtulanna taqtulan
2 f.s. taqtulîna taqtulî taqtulinna taqtulin
3 m.s. yaqtulu yaqtul yaqtulanna yaqtulan
2 taqtulūna taqtulū taqtulunna taqtulun
m.pl.
3 yaqtulūna yaqtulū yaqtulunna yaqtulun
m.pl.
The feminine singular and masculine plural indicative and jussive forms differ in
that the -na ending is not found in the jussive. Recalling that the earlier yaqtul and
yaqtulu (and subjunctive yaqtula) forms largely merged with the loss of final short
vowels in Hebrew, we might wonder about the fate of comparable forms in -na. In
fact, there are some Hebrew cases that preserve the final n of earlier forms, the final
short a having disappeared; these cases attest to the complex origins of the Hebrew
prefix paradigm(s) from a different angle than the yāqōm/yāqûm contrast and the
syntactic uses. These morphological relics present a somewhat different profile than
the factors discussed earlier, and so we present them here. The final n in Hebrew is
called paragogic (Greek ‘[word-]extending’), and the forms themselves may loosely
be called paragogics. 46
43
Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16; Giessen: Topelmann, 1909) 17.
44
R. J. Williams groups all these forms together under the headings of energies; we
follow standard practice in separating them into two groups, though Williams’s view
is plausible (and it is certainly hard to insist that the two groups are absolutely
inseparable; relic forms are rarely so well behaved). See “Energic Verbal Forms in
Hebrew,” Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World Presented to F. V. Winnett, ed. J.
W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1972) 75–85. The
forms are also dealt with in Rainey, “Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation.”
45
Wright, Grammar of the Arabic Language, 1. 60–61, 298.
m. masculine
s. singular
f. feminine
46
The term paragogic is occasionally used of other morphological elements in
Hebrew.