Re: wayyiqtol
Dear John,
See my comments below.
Torsdag 16. Mai 2013 00:11 CEST skrev John Leake <jesleake <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
> Sorry, Rolf, do you mean that short vowels are regularly represented on Qumran texts? I must admit that I
was not under that impression; even Mishnaic Hebrew typically only uses matres lectiones for long
vowels, doesn't it? But I must admit that all my Qumran reading has been from Lohse's _Die Texte aus Qumran:
Hebräisch und Deutsch_, which Grace Emmerson (I think) told me was normalized.
RF: It is correct that the materes lectiones at Qumran basically were used for long vowels (but our view of
long and short vowels is not clearcut). The distinction between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL is connected with
two short vowels, and therefore we cannot distinguish between the two in the DSS. What we do see is that some
prefixforms in the DSS have a prefixed WAW. This may be pragmatic—the reason may be syntactical, that
is, the WAW may be a conjunction that binds the clause togheter. Or it may semantic—the prefixed WAW has
become a part of the verb form, changing its meaning to the very opposite of the meaning of the verb form
without the WAW. We cannot know on the basis of the morphology whether the WAW is pragmatic or semantic.
However, the burden of proof is on those who claim that it is semantic, because the change of meaning of av
verb to the very opposite by the addition oF WAW (a conjunction) is unprecedented in the Semitic languages
and among the other languages of the world. All the viewpoints that the WAW is not a simple conjunction, but
that it is this or that, are highly speculative—I have seen no hard evidence, only claims.
>
> I'd have thought the only real clue was looking for apocopated forms, as indeed you have. I can't imagine
gemination ever being provable or disprovable, though I can see the idea of stress giving ride to
gemination.
>
> Assuming that Arabic can by taken as a near cognate, however (as it too has a yaqtul - jussive - form used in
place of the suffix form qatala where it is negated by the negative particle lam). My Arabic guess would be
that something akin to the emphatic particle la (لَ) might do it. Ant the particle that comes to mind is,
of course, the enclitic particle נא (which has a qameS, often a sign of a historic short /a/). In Arabic,
fa (فَ) combines with la to form a combined particle fal (فَلْ) that often introduces the apodosis
of a condition - and a jussive may well be the verb in the apodosis (of course, ideas of time reference are
hard to pin down in conditionals, but the jussive may be equivalent to the suffix tense in these
statements). I could imagine something similar in Hebrew: wa-na-yiqtol -> wan-yiqtol -> wayyiqtol, the
first person singular becoming wā'eqtol just as the original article han- became hā- before aleph and
resh (losing the nun by analogy).To me it makes perfect sense and makes the waw-consecutive seem rather
easy to understand. > But it's just a casual hypothesis I toyed with thirty years ago. Of course, it might be
something I absorbed while reading. Sometimes our youthful 'theories' turn out to have be unconscious borrowings!
As mentioned above, views regarding the WAW being something else than a conjunction are speculative. Your
suggestion may or may not be correct. We need hard evidence.
There is an Akkadian example that may have some resemblance to your Arabic example. The preterite (a
misnomer because Akkadian does not have tenses) IPRUS is a short prefixform, and the present
IPARRAS(again a misnomer) is the long prefixform. There is also a wish-form called precative. Here we
have the particle LU folloved by the short preterite form. The short prefixform is mostly used with past
reference, but both the short and the long form can have past, present, and future reference.
We should remember that the stems of the Semitic languages is on one semantic level-to a great extent they
express diathesis. Modality is on another semantic level, and aspect is on a third semantic level. The
relationship between mood and aspect is uneven, and therefore I find it difficult to draw any conclusions
regarding the meaning of the verb forms on the basis of modality.
My analysis as to which forms express modality in Hebrew is as follows
WAYYIQTOL: 0.8%
YIQTOL: 37.6% (both long and short YIQTOLs express modality)
WEYIQTOL: 64.4%
QATAL: 2.8%
WEQATAL 20.6%
Active participle:1.4%
Passive participle: 7.0%
Infinitive construct: 5.3%
Infinitive absolutus: 26.7%.
We should not be too quick to draw conclusions from the numbers above. First we have to analyze the numbers
from the point of view of pragmatics versus semantics. This means that we must look at the syntax—is a
conjunction necessary or likely; and in the light of temporal reference—whether modal expressions
are more likely under certain temporal conditions.
Whereas the Semitic languages are cognates, I find it difficult to take some details from one language to
explain certain phenomena in another language; this is too speculative. But the basics are similar: each
language has prefixforms and suffix forms that can be used with past, present, and future reference. This
is even the case with the relatively young Semtic language Ge'ez (Ethiopic).
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
>
>
> John Leake
> ----------------------------------
> ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها
> He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it
> ----------------------------------
>
> On 15 May 2013, at 19:18, "Rolf" <rolf.furuli <at> sf-nett.no> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > I know you as a fine Hebrew scholar, and I also know that you have done much work on the DSS. This thread was
supposed to be descriptive and not argumentative—we were asked to outline our positions on WAYYIQTOL.
But when you use the words "a gross misstatement," I think I am entitled to clear up the issue.
> >
> > In scholarly studies it is very important not to assume anything before we start. So, we cannot ASSUME
that a grammatical form WAYYIQTOL existed in BCE. But we must look at the writings we have from BCE, and they
are the DSS. What do a morphological study of the DSS reveal? About 500 prefix forms with prefixed WAW.
These forms are not geminated and the vowel patah is not represented by the maters lexiones. This
justifies my statement that "the WAYYIQTOL form was not known in the DSS"—only YIQTOLs with prefixed
WAW. The data I presented from Origen and the Samaritan Penbtateuch justify my claim that "the WAYYIQTOL
was not known before the middle of the first millennium CE." The only way to show that this is "a gross
misstatement" is to refer to manuscripts where the WAYYIQTOL is found. This is a challenge to you.
> >
> > You refer to Mishnaic Hebrew, to long and short forms and to irregular verbs. But these data can be
interpreted in different ways, and they prove nothing regarding the existence of a grammatical
WAYYIQTOL form. As far as the data are concerned, they show that the WAYYIQTOL form did not existe before
the middle of the first millennium CE. This is not conjecture, it is not an argument, but it is an
OBSERVATION. And please, do not mix semantic meaning with conversational pragmatic implicature.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> > Stavern
> > Norway
> >
> >
> > Onsdag 15. Mai 2013 17:01 CEST skrev Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn <at> gmail.com>:
> >
> >>> Ken correctly observes that there is no distinction between WATYYIQTOL and
> >> WEYIQTOL in the DSS. The same is true in the Greek >transcriptions of the>> Hebrew text in Origen's
Hexapla. Thus, the WAYYIQTOL form was not known
> >> before the middle of the first millennium >CE., when the Masoretes pointed
> >> the Hebrew text.
> >>
> >> This is such a huge leap in logic I don't know where to begin. It's clear>> that by the time of the DSS the
Wayyiqtol had fallen out of use. The
> >> progression into tense-based Mishnaic Hebrew makes that clear. But to jump
> >> from that to the idea that "the WAYYIQTOL form was *not known* before the>> middle of the first
millennium CE" simply doesn't follow. We don't have any
> >> commentaries or grammars of Hebrew from that time or before, that's all.
> >> The DSS people were more focused on theology and praxis than on
> >> linguistics, so they didn't say anything about the structure of their
> >> language. But in the case of the Hebrew Bible, we have plenty of contextual
> >> and formal hints in the text that the form the Masoretes punctuated as
> >> wayyiqtol was, in fact, different in some way from the simple weyiqtol, so
> >> trying to claim it was "not known" is a gross misstatement. What he means>> is, we didn't have a visual
(written) representation of the form before
> >> that. But the truth is, even that is not accurate, because the whole theory
> >> about long vs. short forms grew out of observation of the way some
> >> irregular verbs behave in the different stems.
> >>
> >> To John: Rolf has presented his novel idea here before, and I think it's
> >> safe to say it hasn't caught on. He denies that the wayyiqtol is a distinct
> >> form and then proceeds accordingly. But even without the Masoretic points,
> >> I think it's safe to say that the wayyiqtol is one of the most solidly
> >> established verb forms in the HB, which renders the theory moot.
> >>
> >> George, I'd like to hear more about your idea, either on or off list (on
> >> would be better so everybody can benefit, but I'll take whatever I can
> >> get!).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli <at> sf-nett.no> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Jerry,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to add one point regarding the origin of WAYYIQTOL to the
> >>> post I sent yesterday.
> >>>
> >>> Ken correctly observes that there is no distinction between WATYYIQTOL and
> >>> WEYIQTOL in the DSS. The same is true in the Greek transcriptions of the>>> Hebrew text in Origen's
Hexapla. Thus, the WAYYIQTOL form was not known
> >>> before the middle of the first millennium CE., when the Masoretes pointed
> >>> the Hebrew text.
> >>>
> >>> (Please note that the Palestinian pointings of WEYIQTOLs versus
> >>> WAYYIQTOLs are not always the same as in the MT. For example, in the
> >>> Palestinian manuscript J in Paul Kahle, "Masoreten des Westens Texte und>>> Untersuchungen zur
Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen," 1930, the
> >>> six WEYIQTOLs in Daniel 11:5 (1), 15(2), 16(2), 17(1) are pointed as
> >>> WAYYIQTOLs.
> >>>
> >>> So, what was the origin of the WAYYIQTOL form? The Masoretes pointed their
> >>> text on the basis of the recitation of the texts in the synagoges—on the
> >>> basis of accentuation (stress) and tone. The difference between WEYIQTOL>>> and WAYYIQTOL is
basically one of accentuation. It is natural to put the>>> stress differently in narrative texts
compared with poetry and prophetic>>> texts. Very little Hebrew grammar was known in the days of the Masoretes—it
> >>> seems that they did not even know the three-radical nature of Hebrew words.
> >>> So, the pointing of the Masoretes was based on pragmatics—the recitation in
> >>> the synagogues and not om semantics—a grammatical distinction between
> >>> different forms. But in the Middle Ages, the pragmatic pointing of the
> >>> Masoretes were given a semantic interpretation (cf. Kimhi), and the view of
> >>> the WAYYIQTOL as an independent grammatical form was born.
> >>>
> >>> When semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature are not
> >>> distinguished, the result is confusion. Does anyone know of a single
> >>> grammatical study in any of the ancient Semitic languages, except my
> >>> dissertation, where this distinction is systematically made?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rolf Furuli
> >>> Stavern
> >>> Norway
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> b-hebrew mailing list
> >>> b-hebrew <at> lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Washburn
> >>
> >> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
> >>
> >> Now available: a novel about King Josiah!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew <at> lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew <at> lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
RSS Feed