Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)
  • Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:42:39 +1000


Hi Herman,

Just a few comments below. I've yet to read your article with any attention, however.

Hi David,
Thanks, I'm interested in anything related to this subject.
Of course you are right about the fact I was exaggerating in my
expectation about Hatav's theory. Just me ;) However, as I have been
thinking this way for five years now, I was so surprised to see that
Galia Hatav now comes up with the same theory simultaneously, that I'm
really convinced of it.
One very important thing to note about this theory:
It is NOT the "definite article" which is "inside" of wayyiqtol!

One the contrary, *both* wayyiqtol and [ha-+dagesh] have the same
gemination in common, which "anchors" nouns and verbs "to the world".
I say this because many people laugh at the theory saying, "yeah
right, how on earth can there be a definite article in a Hebrew yiqtol
verb?"
Well, that's of course an incorrect rendering of the theory.

Why do I believe in this theory?
First, it meets a very important criterium in science:
"The simpler, more elegant, and more surprising theory, that can
account for *more* phenomena with *less* hypotheses, or only one
hypothesis, is to be preferred."
I don't know who said this but I'm quoting what I remember some
British guy has written.
Anyway, don't you think the Hatav theory explains both article and
wayyiqtol with only one hypothesis?

I'll paste my own article here (you can find it below) where you can
find sound proof for at least the fact that the Hebrew article is most
probably only the gemination. I see no reason why primarily gemination
would not be the case in wayyiqtol.
By the way, that article was never published because a while after I
wrote it (it's not even finished) I read Hatav's piece, making my own
superfluous.

What you say about the one yiqtol not being the other yiqtol is important.
We may disagree with Hatav on her assertion that synchronically,
there's only one yiqtol.
Of course, we have this diachronically supposed "preterite yiqtol".
However, if I'm correct and I might not, the diachronically supposed
proto-Canaanite past tense yiqtol (with yussive shortness if I'm
correct) is supposed *on the basis of* the very same Hebrew wayyiqtol,
and Arabic lam yaqtul, both of which can be explained by Hatav's
theory, if applied to Arabic, too: simply dissimilation of a geminated
prefix consonant. Although I immediately admit, that is of course
rather speculative. But on the other hand we have to be wary of
circular reasoning when we suppose a preterite yiqtol next to others.


This is the basic problem as I see it with the theory, aside from what Joel has also added. Wayyiqtol verbs tend to receive apocopation, while yiqtol verbs do not. Apocopation, however, is no longer necessary to determine the form due to the fossilisation of the clitic between the conjunction and the verb. But the trend for apocopation in wayyiqtol verbs needs to be explained, and I think the view that we have two different prefix verbs makes the most sense. And if that is the case, then the preterite does not need any "anchoring" as it anchors itself.

By the way, have you read this monograph:

Testen, David D. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics: The Development of Arabic la- and Related Semitic Particles. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 26. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

If you go for Galia's proposal, you'll probably find this interesting reading.



In fact, imagine we do take the preterite yiqtol's existence for
granted, wayyiqtol does not even uniformly have mil'el
stress/apocopated forms, so what can we say about it? Are then both
"preterite" and "modal" yiqtols possible in wayyiqtol? In that case, I
think, synchronically speaking, the "several types of
yiqtol"-distinction has apparently become so blurred that there really
was only one yiqtol.

The thing you said about the first temple period and bible book
dating, admitting it is important for syntax in some cases, I wonder
if that is really so crucial here. I things such as the "priestly
code", like Gen 1-2,3(4?) are to be dated after or in the Galut Bavel,
which is fine with me although I'm not really a theologian, it can
hardly be dated much later. There will always be people who date this
book early and that book late. For example, I am absolutely convinced
that the book Ruth is very old, first temple period, probably written
for one of the Davidic kings, in order to get rid of the annoying
"buzz" among the people that one of David's ancestors was a Moabite. I
can't find any more sound reason for that book having been written
than that. The Hebrew's old too. However, there are many people who'd
say that's nonsense, the book was written half a millennium or more
later, it's a little social novel about an immigrant worker and her
lot and so on. I had this discussion about that with Atalya Brenner,
the feminist, but no way of coming near each other's point of view.
Now my point. Having said the above, how can we come up with any
theory about Hebrew syntax at all, if we cannot decide for ourselves a
body of texts to study a certain phenomenon in, just because others
may say the dating of these books is controversial? Anything
concerning the Hebrew Bible is controversial.
The grammar of Joüon-Muraoka has quite a few errors or very doubtful
suppositions too, yet it is very frequently quoted and often as
"proof". The most crucial error being that poetry examples are being
quoted to back up syntactical hypotheses for prose, which is
inacceptable. The book's still for sale though.


The point I wished to make was that it is extremely difficult to date things linguistically in the OT due to its lack of dialectical uniformativity. Add to this the fact that people can write "archaically" and the scribal tendency to update language before the text was "standardised" and we have a problem. I am not claiming that any or all of the books Gen-2 Kings are either early OR late, only that one cannot assume that all linguistic features in those books represent an early Hebrew as apposed to other Hebrew in the OT.

Sorry for all that, just thought you were a little too strict on
Hatav's article ;)

What I would like you, well anyone I guess, to ask is: present us a
better, simpler, more elegant theory than this, or better even, why
don't you try to look at the BHebrew texts supposing the theory (as if
you actually believe it yourself), only to give it up when you really
find something that contradicts it.
That would be an interesting experiment of thought.
My opinion of science is, it has to provide the best and simplest
hypotheses to explain certain phenomena, for the time being, until an
even better one is given, so after testing that hypothesis, we may or
may not accept it.
There may never be actual *proof* for any theory concerning wayyiqtol.
However, *ALL other theories* I have seen so far are either unlikely,
need too many additional hypotheses, or are too far-fetched to be
taken seriously.

Theories don't always have to be proved, the proof is in that they
*work*. This works!

Thanks for reading all this.
Must be tiresome ;)
Btw I really appreciate reactions like yours to this "gemination
first"-theory. Most people don't take it seriously in the first place,
so thank you for that.

Best regards,
Herman Meester


Sincerely,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page