(The following article is in the process of being revised. Last updated September 6, 2003)

I hope to supply sufficient evidence in this article to show that the derivations of the tri-literal words were originally accomplished by compounding. That is the first layer of my theory of Ancient Hebrew derivational morphology. The second layer is what I call the Deep Structure of derivational word formation. That aspect is more theoretical in this article, but it is interconnected with the first. This aspect is more theoretical because it is more likely that we can prove the first layer morphology to be true, and it may take more data to verify the second layer of the proposed morphology. In the first layer of my theory the three letter words are formed from a two letter word and a single letter form which is either a bound form or a free form. The meanings of the two parts of a word constitutes the definition of the resultant word formed. In the second layer, Deep Structure, the single letter words are the elemental morphemes of Ancient Hebrew and the two letter words are also compounds of those elemental morphemes. And each of the 22 letters has three meanings, totaling 66 elemental morphemes. They are compounded to form approximately 200 words. The elemental morphemes are compounded to the two letter words to form all of the tri-literal words.

This article does not deal with issues of vocalization, but at this time I believe the original vocalization determined weather a word was a 1) noun, 2) verb, 3) adjective, 4) adverb, 5) noun-verb (universal), or 6) particular (indicated in English by 'a' or 'an'). My position on the Masoretic morphology is that it represents the Hebrew language of a time around one thousand years ago. My general position is that Ancient Hebrew could not have had two different competing morphological systems. I think compounding was used to define base meanings of words and then upon that, vocalization was used to determine grammatical usage.

I wish to deal with Ancient Hebrew in its earliest phase of word formation, synchronically, and not to deal with later historical linguistic modifications. The Masoretic morphological system assumes the tri-literal words are the roots upon which vowels are infixed, so an analysis of compounding to form the tri-literal words predates the Masoretic system. Also I believe the derivations I am examining predate evidence we have gathered by the comparative method from other Semitic languages. As an instance, some would argue that the word for "water" mym can be compared with Semitic 'ma' of Ugaritic, and Arabic, and that mym actually means "waters", where m is "water" and my is the plural suffix in that case. I see that word as formed from m "from" prefixed to ym "ocean" or "sea"; or MYM = M + YM, water = from + sea. I am going to be showing some paradigms with their meanings, to show a consistency in that nature of word formation. It is upon those paradigms that my evidence is based.

Let us take an example from Ancient Hebrew. The word 'GLL' means "release" and it is derived from 'GL': "hold" + 'L': "negate". It is possible that one of the forms or both may seem to be a bound form, because the vocalization of the parts may change in the word formed. But while I have discovered the rules for word formation, I have not discovered the rules for vocalization. I do know the possible vocalizations for Ancient Hebrew words. That subject is treated in other articles. The point which is important is that 'GL' is a word and 'L' effectively is a word, because no other form means "negate" other than 'L'. Some forms related to 'L': "negate" are 'LA': "not" and 'AL': "don't" (possibly also meaning "impersonal"). Also 'GL' is derived from compounding as 'GL' "hold" = 'G' "repell" + 'L' "negate"

Another example is 'WLK' "walk" = 'W' + 'LK' "procead". I am not sure of the meaning of 'W' in that case. As you can see it is related to the English word with the same meaning. 'WL' "contrast" = 'W' "exist" + 'L' "negate"; 'WLL' "compliment" = 'WL' "contrast" + 'L' "negate"; 'MWLL' "praise" = 'M' + 'WLL' "compliment". Notice how 'WLL' parallels 'GLL' in its formation and definitions. 'WRW' "hill" = 'WR' "mountain" + 'W'. That 'W' parallels the feminine suffix 'W' but I am not sure what meaning is in view there.

'GDL' "great" = 'G' "repell" + 'DL' "poor". 'MGDL' "tower" = 'M' "contain" + 'GDL' "great". I think the meaning "repell" for 'G' is also found in the word 'DG' meaning "fish", but I do not know what the meaning of 'D' is in that case.

'JUB' "good" = 'JB' "well" infix 'U' "better". 'YJB' "fix" = 'Y' "make" + 'JB' "well". Also 'JYB' "right" = 'JB' infix 'Y'.

The word 'LY' seems to mean "consider" or "accept". 'LYL' "disreguard" = 'LY' "accept" + 'L' "negate". The following is derived from an inflectional formation: 'LYLW' "disreguardance" = 'LYL' "disreguard" + 'W' "ance" (noun forming suffix). 'LYLW' also is a terminological word based on the meaning "disreguardance", it means "night". It is interesting the English word 'night' is probably related to the English word 'nought' ("nothing"), so the English word had to some extent a parallel derivation. 'OTW' "now" = 'OT' "time" + 'W' "exist". 'WW' "existance" = 'W' "exist" + 'W' "-ance" (noun forming); also 'WW' /waoo/, English 'wow', is used as an exclamation.

'NTN' "reward" = 'N' + 'TN' "give". 'NTN' is 'nathan' in transliteration.

'SAL' "drop" = 'SA' "carry" + 'L' "negate". The similar form 'SAL' meaning "ask" could be derived from 'S' "opposite" + 'AL' "impersonal". The words 'LHM' "bread" and the same 'LHM' "fight" may be from different formations, unless one has a terminological derivation, but I have not figured that one out. Though 'HM' means "heat", and that is related to "bake". The meaning "fight" may be related to "friction". 'SRS' "root" = 'S' "opposite" + 'RS' "head". 'SHR' /sahara/ "black" = 'S' "opposite" + 'HR' "glow". 'HR' "glow" = 'H' "nature" + 'R' "universe". I am more comfortable with the thought that 'R' means "universal", but that is the best I can do with that derivation at this time. 'SRC' "crawl" = 'S' "opposite" + 'RC' "run". Also 'SRC' means "rodents" as a terminological word based on the meaning "crawl". I know that 'YS' means "afirm" and is related to the English words 'is' and 'yes', but I can only guess that it is derived from "indeterminate" + "opposite". 'YSW' means "afirmation" and is pronounced /yaesoo/ or /yasoo/.

'M' is pronounced with a closed mouth, so it means "contain". 'P' is pronounced as a bilabial plosive, and it means "separate". 'K' is pronounced as the tongue deflects or hits the hard palate and 'K' means "hit" or "reflect" and "deflect". Also the 'K' grapheme is found in Ancient Egyptian writing and in the Early Semitic alphabet and it depicts a deflection of the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection or deflection. The meanings of the 22 letters are somehow derived from the maner in which they are pronounced. That is the basis of the Natural Language. All of the meanings mentioned in this paragraph are found in the same kind of word formation described in the several paragraphs above.

Each of the 22 letters has 3 meanings, so they constitute 66 meanings, and depending on how they are vocalized they constitute 66 words. These are the prime elements used in the word formation described above. That word formation along with the inflectional word formation of Ancient Hebrew is patterned as an ideal language. In an ideal language the meaning of the parts of words constitutes the proper definition of the words formed.