Why does a segolate noun in Psalm 38:1[2] retain its segol with pronominal suffix?

Question

The first column (right-to-left) is a list of segolate nouns.

The second column shows that, when a pronoun is added to segolate noun, the vowel under the first letter of the root reverts to whatever quality, hiriq (אִ) or patach (אַַ), it originally was in whatever language Hebrew developed out of.

The third column shows that even in pause, when the final vowel is re-lengthened back into a segol, the first vowel still retains its original pre-Biblical quality, hiriq (אִ) or patach (אַַ).

• כֶּרֶם כַרְמְךָ כַּרְמֶךָ vineyard
• לֶחֶם לַחְמְךָ לַחְמֶךָ bread, food
• צֶדֶק צִדְקְךָ צִדְקֶךָ righteousness
• קֶבֶר קִבְרְךָ קִבְרֶךָ grave
• פֶּלֶא פִּלְאֲךָ פִּלְאֶךָ a wonder
• קֶרֶב קִרְבְּךָ קִרְבֶּךָ middle, midst
• עֶבֶד עַבְדְּךָ עַבְדֶּֽךָ slave, servant
• חֶסֶד חַסְדְּךָ חַסְדֶּךָ goodness, kindness
• דֶּרֶךְ דַּרְכְּךָ דַּרְכֶּךָ way, road,
• כֶּסֶף כַּסְפְּךָ כַּסְפֶּךָ silver, money

There is one notable exception to this rule.

• קֶצֶף קֶצְפְּךָ קִצְפֶּךָ wrath

Here we see that, although the initial vowel reverts in pause (Psalm 102:10[11]), it fails to revert out of pause (Psalm 38:1[2]).

Did this result from a scribal error? Or is there a historical or linguistic explanation for this anomaly?

Answer 1

According to Bauer-Leander (Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, 1922), §72y, this is a result of the merger between segol-segol (קֶ֫טֶל) and tsere-segol (קֵ֫טֶל) types:

Da die Type קֶ֫טֶל und קֵ֫טֶל in weitem Umfange lautgesetzlich zusammengefallen sind, kommen natürlich Schwankungen häufig vor. Sehr viele Nomina zeigen im freien Sg. beide Formen, auch schwankt mitunter der Stammvokal vor Suffixen zwischen a, i od. œ: ... קֶ֫צֶף "Zornesausbruch" vor Suff. gew. mit i, aber קֶצְפְּךָ Ps 38:2; ...

My translation:

Since the types קֶ֫טֶל and קֵ֫טֶל have phonetically merged to a large extent, frequent fluctuations are to be expected. Many nouns attest in the free singular both forms, and also the stem vowel for suffices fluctuates from time to time between a, i and œ: ... קֶ֫צֶף "outburst" for suffices usually with i, but קֶצְפְּךָ Ps 38:2; ...

I could not find other literature on this particular form. It seems nobody has a better explanation than this one, which indeed is a little unsatisfying because it explains the form as an exception.

Answer 2

This is too long for a comment on Keelan's helpful answer, so I offer it as a supplemental answer. The following items should also be noted:

• When Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (revised ed; Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006) discuss the issue of vocalization of original *CVCC nouns (the "segolate" class), he (Muraoka) includes this comment (at § 88C.a*(6)):

  The vowel following the first radical in the pausal form does not always clinch the matter. [Cf. § 96A.f]

  One example provided is beṭen which is pausal bāṭen, but suffixed biṭnî. As their later discussion demonstrates (at § 96), "it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to tell whether a noun was originally a qatl or a qitl, or if both forms existed simultaneously".

• One fundamental study relating to this area is that by E.J. Revell, "The Voweling of "i Type" Segolates in Tiberian Hebrew", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44.4 (1985): 319-328, which is supplemented by his later "The Tiberian Reflexes of Short *i in Closed Syllables", Journal of the American Oriental Society 109.2 (1989): 183-203.

  In neither of these, however, does he deal directly with OP's question, nor does he devote any special attention to קֶצֶף. It is mentioned in the "Segolates" article at § 3.3b (p. 321), but only as a member of the class of segolates beginning with q-.

  I think that Revell doesn't attend OP's "problem case" directly since he didn't consider it problematic. Contextual qeṣep has as its pausal form qāṣep (see Josh 22:20; Zech 1:2; Eccl 5:16; Est 1:18), while it also shows the "i" vowel when suffixed as in Isa 60:10. So far, it looks like the messy situation described by Muraoka.

• What about the form that worries OP (Ps 38:2), cited as קֶצְפְּךָ? As a read through the Revell articles will amply demonstrate, there is more than a single linguistic force at work in these forms, and they are subject to different kinds of conditioning. It should be noted, then, that the full form as it appears in Ps 38 is actually אַל־בְּקֶצְפְּךָ, and here Joseph's comment is indeed relevant. IF qeṣep has an original "i" (*qiṣp), then Revell's observations at § 6.3 (p. 187) of the "Tiberian Reflexes" article are probably enough to suggest that the segol in the form in Ps 38:2 is not entirely bizarre:

  Segol occurs in a closed word-initial syllable under stress in n'εgbɔ and q'εdšɔ (in pause and in context, Gen 13:14, 28:14, Judg 4:9, 10). Segol also occurs in such syllables when unstressed, generally after alef, ḥet or ʿayin...

  And he goes on to give other examples (not including Ps 38:2). Given the kinds of "conditioning" that can shape vowels (structure and position of the syllable; phonetic environment; relation to context, [what he elsewhere described as "supra-segmental contours"] and others), the form in Ps 38:2 shouldn't be seen as entirely inexplicable.

At the very least, one can summarize by saying that the application of a single "rule" (or even pattern) to all cases in a linguistic environment is always going to be limiting -- there are many factors to consider, and languages do exhibit irregularities!

Answer 3

Excellent question that has opened a new door to study of the original languages. I have always been fascinated with the spelling in Hebrew and how it is fairly rigid at times and inexplicable at other times.

In Andersen's book Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, he gives a couple of reasons for variations in "defective" spelling of segolate nouns. The first is that a defective spelling entered into the language at an early date and this hardened the usage to become the standard for that word. In other cases Hebrew dislikes consonant clusters and vowels are changed to avoid the clusters. Finally in a few rare circumstances he admits a scribal error may have entered into the text at an early date and that scribal error has become the defacto standard for that Hebrew word.

Andersen did not specifically address the word in Psalm 102:10 that you mentioned.

Andersen made this comment about the spelling in Hebrew:

This complex writing system raises the question of the “correct” spelling of any word containing one or more long vowels. Introductory grammars usually supply simple spelling rules. Example: “… while the usage of vowel letters to indicate final vowels was standardized early, there is no consistency in the use of internal vowel letters in the Bible” (Greenberg 1965: 18). This suggests that there is a rule for spelling a vowel at the end of a word (Spell it plene!), but there is no rule for spelling a vowel within a word. Würthwein (1979: 28) says about the phenomenon of variant spelling: “… the writing of a form plene or defective is completely fortuitous, involving neither consistency of usage nor significance for the meaning of the text.”

Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 1–2.