Chapter 14 — Peal Imperfect Parsing Drill¶
Basics of Biblical Aramaic, Van Pelt — Ch14: Peal Imperfect
Instructions¶
For each numbered verb form drawn from Daniel or Ezra, provide:
- Root — the three root consonants (cite the root in its dictionary form, i.e., the Peal perfect 3ms)
- PGN — person (1st / 2nd / 3rd), gender (m / f / c), number (sg / pl)
- Translation — English rendering appropriate to the context
All forms are Peal imperfect. Verb types include strong roots and several weak classes (I-aleph, I-nun, hollow, III-he, III-aleph).
Parsing Drill¶
| # | Form | Root | PGN | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | יִכְתֻּב | |||
| 2 | יֵאמַר | |||
| 3 | יְקוּם | |||
| 4 | יִפַּל | |||
| 5 | יֶהֱוֵא | |||
| 6 | יִשְׁלַח | |||
| 7 | תִּקְטֻל | |||
| 8 | יַעְבְּדוּן | |||
| 9 | תִּבְנֵא | |||
| 10 | יִסְגְּדוּן | |||
| 11 | נִזְכֻּר | |||
| 12 | יִנְתֵּן | |||
| 13 | יִקְטֻל | |||
| 14 | יִשְׁמַע | |||
| 15 | אֶכְתֻּב | |||
| 16 | תִּכְתְּבוּן | |||
| 17 | תִּכְתְּבִין | |||
| 18 | יִכְתְּבָן | |||
| 19 | תֵּאמְרוּן | |||
| 20 | נֶהֱוֵא |
Reflection Questions¶
-
Items 1 and 13 use the abstract model root קטל and the actual root כתב respectively for the same PGN. What tells you these are both 3ms Peal imperfect forms, and how does the u-vowel in the stem differ from the Hebrew equivalent?
-
Items 2 and 19 share the same root (אמר). What is different about their forms, and what PGN does each represent? What caused the prefix vowel change in both?
-
Item 12 (יִנְתֵּן) is the Peal imperfect of the root יהב ("to give"). Why doesn't this form look like a typical Peal imperfect of יהב? What grammatical phenomenon explains this?
-
Compare item 4 (יִפַּל) with the Peal perfect of the same root (נְפַל). What happened to the first root consonant in the imperfect? How does this compare to Hebrew יִפֹּל?
-
Items 16, 17, and 18 share the same root (כתב). They represent 2mp, 2fs, and 3fp respectively. What suffix distinguishes each, and how do these Aramaic endings differ from their Hebrew Qal imperfect counterparts?
Answer Key¶
| # | Form | Root | PGN | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | יִכְתֻּב | כתב | 3ms | he will write |
| 2 | יֵאמַר | אמר | 3ms | he will say |
| 3 | יְקוּם | קום | 3ms | he will arise |
| 4 | יִפַּל | נפל | 3ms | he will fall |
| 5 | יֶהֱוֵא | הוה | 3ms | it will be / he will be |
| 6 | יִשְׁלַח | שׁלח | 3ms | he will send |
| 7 | תִּקְטֻל | קטל | 3fs / 2ms | she will kill / you (ms) will kill |
| 8 | יַעְבְּדוּן | עבד | 3mp | they (m) will serve / do |
| 9 | תִּבְנֵא | בנה | 3fs / 2ms | she/it will be built / you (ms) will build |
| 10 | יִסְגְּדוּן | סגד | 3mp | they (m) will bow down |
| 11 | נִזְכֻּר | זכר | 1cp | we will remember |
| 12 | יִנְתֵּן | יהב | 3ms | he will give |
| 13 | יִקְטֻל | קטל | 3ms | he will kill |
| 14 | יִשְׁמַע | שׁמע | 3ms | he will hear |
| 15 | אֶכְתֻּב | כתב | 1cs | I will write |
| 16 | תִּכְתְּבוּן | כתב | 2mp | you (mp) will write |
| 17 | תִּכְתְּבִין | כתב | 2fs | you (fs) will write |
| 18 | יִכְתְּבָן | כתב | 3fp | they (f) will write |
| 19 | תֵּאמְרוּן | אמר | 2mp | you (mp) will say |
| 20 | נֶהֱוֵא | הוה | 1cp | we will be |
Answers to Reflection Questions¶
1. Both יִכְתֻּב and יִקְטֻל are 3ms because they carry the 3ms prefix יִ- (yod + hireq) and no suffix. The stem vowel is qibbuts (ֻ) under the third radical — the u-class pattern of the Aramaic Peal imperfect. The Hebrew Qal equivalent would use holem (ֹ): Hebrew יִכְתֹּב vs. Aramaic יִכְתֻּב. The shift from o to u is the primary phonological marker distinguishing Aramaic Peal imperfect from Hebrew Qal imperfect.
2. Item 2 is יֵאמַר (3ms): prefix יֵ- (tsere, from lengthened hireq before quiescent aleph) + no suffix. Item 19 is תֵּאמְרוּן (2mp): prefix תֵּ- (tav + tsere) + suffix -וּן (shureq + nun). Both forms show the same compensatory lengthening: the I-aleph root causes the prefix hireq (יִ- / תִּ-) to lengthen to tsere (יֵ- / תֵּ-) because the initial aleph of the root quiesces and cannot carry its own vowel.
3. The root יהב (to give) is a I-yod verb whose yod drops in the imperfect, leaving only two consonants — a pattern that would produce an unpronounceable or extremely sparse form. Biblical Aramaic uses a suppletive form from the related root נתן (cognate with Hebrew נָתַן "to give") for the imperfect. The form יִנְתֵּן follows the I-nun pattern: the initial nun assimilates into the following tav (the dagesh in תּ marks this assimilation), producing יִנְתֵּן rather than *יִנְנְתֵּן. This suppletive pair (יהב in the perfect / נתן-derived form in the imperfect) is lexically irregular and must be memorized.
4. In the Peal perfect, the I-nun root נְפַל preserves its nun fully: נ-פ-ל. In the Peal imperfect (יִפַּל), the initial nun assimilates into the following consonant (peh), which is marked by a dagesh forte (פּ). The root consonant is still present — encoded in the dagesh — but is no longer written as a separate letter. This is identical to the Hebrew Qal imperfect of the same root: Hebrew יִפֹּל also shows the assimilated nun as dagesh forte in peh. The difference between the two is only the stem vowel: Hebrew holem (יִפֹּל) vs. Aramaic patach (יִפַּל).
5. All three forms share the prefix system and root consonants כ-ת-ב: - Item 16 (תִּכְתְּבוּן, 2mp): prefix תִּ- + suffix -וּן (shureq + nun). Hebrew 2mp equivalent: תִּכְתְּבוּ (no nun). - Item 17 (תִּכְתְּבִין, 2fs): prefix תִּ- + suffix -ִין (hireq + yod + nun). Hebrew 2fs equivalent: תִּכְתְּבִי (no nun, just yod). - Item 18 (יִכְתְּבָן, 3fp): prefix יִ- + suffix -ָן (qamets + nun). Hebrew 3fp equivalent: תִּכְתֹּבְנָה (different prefix tav and completely different suffix).
The pattern: Aramaic adds a final nun to the plural and 2fs suffixes where Hebrew either omits it (2mp, 2fs) or uses a different ending altogether (3fp). This "nun paragogicum" is one of the most reliable Aramaic diagnostics.