Hebrew Question: Can matres lectionis serve as part of a three-letter root?

Here are a couple of examples of what I'm finding. My difficulty is that this use of MLs in root construction goes against my understanding of how they came to be used. First, the use of the waaw in this word is as a waaw (consonantal sound). Fine.

But in the these two examples, the waaw is used as a ML of hhohlaam or shuuruuq...

To allow for this reshapes my understanding of the structure and historical use of MLs. I know they were introduced early in the existence of BH, but to have them be part of fundamental roots is surprising--at least to me. Perhaps these roots are not as "primitive" as Strong's suggests? If they are indeed primitive, I have a whole new matrix calculation to run. Any background (or resource discussing the historical development) would be appreciated.

I found this interesting: regarding Isa. 29:21, in L3 the LHI suggests the lexeme is qohpph - shiyn...

...but in L7 it is suggested to be qohpph - waaw - shiyn...

I'm curious why L3 had it without the waaw. It seems that the original thinking was similar to my own.

Ben said:

I think you're approaching this backwards. What happened is not some ML being reappropriated as consonants. Rather, you have three letters (w,y,h) that were consonants *first*, and later appropriated/extended as MLs.

I'm not sure what I said that caused you to think I am "approaching this backwards". I know the MLs repurposed the "weak" consonants to indicate vowels, and that is what is driving my whole query. To my way of thinking, because Hebrew is a designed language based on triliteral root words, the words, for the most part, should have already been established before the implementation of the use of MLs. I understand how 'alepph and `ayin (which are essentially no-sound consonants), can be used in three-letter roots. But using MLs as vowels in three-letter roots seems to violate the whole concept of an abjad language system.

Ben said:

If I remember correctly, studying Arabic was quite helpful in this respect. Hollow verbs are actually II-W, so following the Hebrew model of qatal, a II-W verb in the qal 3ms would have been qāwal>qāl, and the yaqtul form would be yaqwul>yaqūl.

But in the d-stem, Hebrew punts a bit. Sometimes you get reduplication of the final consonant, the so-called polel. But other times, you get a nicely doubled consonant, just like it "should" be, i.e. Genesis 18:19 ‎  יְצַוֶּ֜ה  yǝṣawweh, he will command.

I think I followed what you said above, but I don't really think it is addressing what I'm getting at. I'm perfectly fine with a three-letter word like קוּם or קֹוף being three letters. What I am disputing is that such a word can be a ROOT word AS IS. I don't understand how quum is a root word. I'm perfectly okay with qaawaam being a root out of which grammatical manipulation renders quum, but saying that a ML is a legitimate root letter in the formation of a fundamental root doesn't make sense. If that is indeed "true", then it has ALWAYS BEEN A LIE TO CALL HEBREW AN ABJAD.

Stated differently, a VOWEL SOUND can't be part of a fundamental root. I'm also insisting that there is a vast difference between 'alepph & `ayin (which are technically consonants) and ML's like hhohlem waaw & shuuruuq.

I miss Vincent Setterholm. [:S]

Thanks! I do have Blau in Logos, so I will check it out! That's just what I was looking for. [Y]