1. Regarding the Arabic origin of the use of analogies in grammar and other sciences, see Edna Coffin, “Ibn Janah′s Kit′:An Integration of Medieval Grammar Approaches,” in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George Cameron,ed. Louis Orlin (Ann Arbor: Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan, 1976), p. 75, and Versteegh, C.H.M., Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic Thinking(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), pp. 16, 90 n. 1, 96 ff. Also see n. 8 below.Google Scholar

2. These three works were published as The Weak and Geminative Verbs in Hebrewand translated into Hebrew in the Middle Ages by Moshe ha-Kohen ibn Giqatilla as ed. John W. Nutt (London: Asher & Co., 1870) and by Abraham ibn Ezra as , ed. Leopold Dukes (Stuttgart, 1844), and into English by John Nutt as Two Treatises on Verbs Containing Feeble and Double Letters(London: Asher & Co., 1870).

3. Ed. Paul Kokovtsov, in (Jerusalem: Kedem, 1969/70); also see Sh. Abramson, (Jerusalem: Mosad Rav Kook, 1988).

4. By “weak” verbs is meant verbal forms with absent radicals, i.e., forms in which not all three radicals appear in the surface structure; consequently, I have elected to use the terminology of “weak” and “strong” when referring to roots and verbs. Since Hebrew morphology allows for the regular transformation of weak roots, it would be improper to call their inflections “irregular.” Hayyûj defined weak roots as those that include among their radicals one of the letters Strong roots do not include any of these letters. Hayyûj also made note of other radicals, namely, , that behave like weak letters, but the focus of his work is on the former set of consonants. See Hayyûj, p. 122, 11. 10–12, and Roger Jay Kaplan, “A Critical Analysis of the Philological Methods of Yehuda ben David (Hayyûj)” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1992), pp. 156–157.

5. ′Alî Khalid Wathad, “The Linguistic Thinking of Rabbi Yehuda Hayyflj Through His Terminology in Its Arabic Original and Their Hebrew Translations” (Master′s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984) (in Hebrew).

6. Ilan Eldar, “Hayyfûj′s Grammatical Analysis,” 54 (1990): 169–181 (in Hebrew). The discussion of the underlying form is found on pp. 176–178, with the application of the concept detailed on pp. 178–181.

7. Ibid., from English summary, p. vii.

8. On the use of analogies in Arabic linguistic literature of the Middle Ages, see Haim Blanc, “Diachronic and Synchronic Ordering in Medieval Arab Theory,” in Studia Orientalia Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicate, ed. Blau J. et al. (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1979), p. 158; and Ramzi Baalbaki, “Early Arab Lexicographers and the Use of Semitic Languages,” Berytus Archaeological Studies31 (1983): 117–127.

9. Blanc, “Diachronic and Synchronic Ordering,” loc. Cit

10. Yehuda ben Quraysh, , ed. Dan Becker (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1984).

11. Ibid., p. 337.

12. Ibid., p. 63.

13. Geoffrey Horrocks, Generative Grammar(London: Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987), p. 36 (emphasis in original).

14. Bent Jacobsen, Transformational-Generative Grammar(Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co. 1977), p. 240.

15. For example, Hayyûj identified the root by its three individual radicals and not by any vocalized form, i.e., by the consonants and not the lexeme , which appears to be the basic stem. Hayyûj, p. 203, 1. 12.

16. “Ungrammatical” means that the verb does not follow the morphological or phonological rules of the language and consequently is not an accepted lexeme. For instance, the verbal form (“will fall”) is neither grammatical nor acceptable because the weak 3 should assimilate into the second radical in this inflection (see Figure 3). This definition is in contrast to “nonattested” forms, which refer to lexical items that may be grammatical but are not found in the Hebrew Bible.

17. Hayyûj, p. 69,11. 6–7.

18. Ibid., p. 89,1. 9.

19. Hayyûj accepted the 1 and ′ as being interchangeable as medial weak radicals; consequently the form with from the root was acceptable to him.

20. Hayyûj, p. 66, 11. 12–13. Hayyûj′s (or the scribe′s) version of this biblical passage is defective; the preposition is not in the Masoretic text.

21. Ibid., p. 15, 11. 6–7, see n. 23 below.

22. Ibid., p. 15,11. 6–7.

23. Francis, Brown, Driver, S. R., and Charles Briggs, A., eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), p. 394; here the verb is emended toGoogle Scholar

24. Kaplan, “Critical Analysis,” p. 208.

25. Hayyûj, p. 121,11. 11–12.

26. This is so despite the guttural in the root, which cannot be geminated in the pfeiand hitpd′elpatterns. For Hayyûj′s purposes and according to his definition of weak radicals (i.e.,), the root is an appropriate choice as it does not include any weak radicals and consequently none is omitted from any inflection.Google Scholar

27. See Esther Goldenberg, “The First Hebrew Paradigm,” 43 (1978): 83–99 (Hebrew), and as Representing the Paradigm in Sa′adia′s Inflectional Table,“ 55 (1991): 323–326 (Hebrew). Also see S. L. Skoss, Saadia Gaon, the Earliest Hebrew Grammarian(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1955).

28. See Sibawayht, ′Amir ibn ′Uthman, Kitab Sibawayhi,ed. ′Abd al-Salam Muhammed Harun (Baghdad: Bulaq Press, 1966), and cf. the root in Gerard Troupeau, Lexique-index du Kitab de Sibawayhi(Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1976), p. 164.

29. AbO 1-Fath ′Uthman, ibn Djinni, al-Munsif , ed. Ibrahim Mustafa and ′Abd Allah Amin (Cairo, 1954), I, p. 11, 11. 10 ff

30. Hayyûj, p. 44, 1. 15.

31. Ibid., p. 45,1. 15.

32. Ibid., p. 218,11. 2–6. He may have been making this point to argue against Menahem ben Sarfûq (Menahem ben Sarfûq, Sefer Mahberet Menahem,ed. Herschell Filipowski [London: Hevrat Me′orerei Yeshanim, 1854], p. 183), who said that this verb was from the biliteral root Brown (et al., Hebrew and English Lexicon,p. 16) derived it from the root inflected in the hiftlpattern.

33. Hayyfûj, p. 218, 11. 2–5. It can be said that Hayyûj contradicted himself by deriving the form and then saying that it did not exist.

34. Ibid., p. 54,1. 6.

35. Ibid., p. 63,11. 4–5.