He further rejects the notion (rather the consensus by now) that segholate
nouns exhibit an old broken plural form (a-insertion), because "they terminate in the ordinary plural suffix." The final sections of this chapter contain a few notes on numerals and prepositions.
Some examples of possible over-simplification are as follows: nowhere in the text is a complete paradigm of the pual or hophal to be found; there is no discussion of verbal aspect; the semantics of the Hebrew verbal stems are explained in only the most basic sense; diacritical marks are shunned in transliteration; references to historical Semitic grammar are almost entirely absent from the book, even when it might aid a student in understanding specific forms of a word (e.g., she does not discuss the evolution of segholate
nouns, only mentioning that they have a different form when a suffix is attached); and there is no discussion of why some vowels "reduce" in certain situations but not others, only that they do.
In explaining the pausal forms of segholates
, a comparative-historical analysis is preferable to stating merely that "a word that normally has a short vowel in its accented syllable will have this vowel lengthened when it is in pause." Thus, [Hebrew Text Omitted] 'land' should rather point to Arabic and Proto-Semitic ard as the more original form, i.e., a [greater than] [Epsilon], with a firm realization that pausal forms often display archaic features.