Wayyiqtol - comparative Semitic, morphology, phonology
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Sat Jul 29 17:47:55 EDT 2000
>understood the text, and realized that most YIQTOLs with proclitic waw
>used in past narrative but some were used for the future or were modal, so
>they choose patah for the first group and shewa for the second. Because
>Masoretes were not grammarians, we need not think that they, by using
>and patah as described, intended to create two different semantic groups
>conjugations. Their differentiation between shewa and patah could just
>been one of function (pragmatic) and not one of meaning (semantic).
>However, later grammarians, who were influenced by Mishnaic Hebrew,
>interpreted the pragmatic differentiation of the Masoretes in a semantic
>way, and the four conjugations were born.
rolf, you already know enough to tear the above apart if you want to.
Just how good a fit do you really think the above 'conspiracy theory' is?
And it's close to a millenium out of sync.
(ps: 'grammars'/'competency' inside people produce speech/texts [e.g., MT,
whether in an oral medium or written medium] and writing up a metalanguage
'grammar' about that (living) 'grammar' is a secondary phenomenon.
It would be theorectically difficult to maintain that 'four
conjugations' were not part of the 'MT grammar' according to your
i.e. according to the theory you outline above, it would be more correct to
say that the MT created the four conjugations not the later grammarians.
Those later grammar writers are not creating something if the four
categories were already part of the text.)
More information about the b-hebrew