Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf
  • Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:50:22 +0200

Dear George,

I have the following comments regarding the jussive:

In the linguistic literature we often find the acronym TAM, which refers to
tense, aspect, and mood. These are three completely different categories; two
of them (tense and aspect) refer to this world, and one (mood) refers to
imagined worlds.

Waltke/O'Connor suggests that we distinguish between jussive form and jussive
sense. This is fine, but I would prefer "modal" or "modality" instead of
"jussive sense." The jussive form is an apocopated YIQTOL. I analyze 5,117 of
the 13, 619 YIQTOLs in the Tanakh as modal. Of these modal YIQTOLs, I found
only 298 apocopated forms. I also found 102 apocopated WEYIQTOLs. In
addition, I found 274 YIQTOLs and 250 WEYIQTOLs with cohortative endings.
Only a few YIQTOLs can be apocopated. Nevertheless, the small number of
apocopated forms indicate that the nature of these forms are not clear.
Enhancing this, is the fact that many YIQTOLs that could have been apocopated
are long. For example, after the negation L) I found 11 examples of
apocopated YIQTOLs, and after the 598 cases of the negation )L I found 7 with
cohortative endings and 123 apocopated forms; 30 YIQTOLs that could have been
apocopated were long. So the picture is inconsistent, and we do not know
whether apocopation in
these forms are semantic of pragmatic.

Of the 3,919 WAYYIQTOLs of hollow verbs, lamed he verbs, and hiphils, I found
that 416 (10.6%) were long and 3.503 (89.4%) were apocopated. Only the
apocopation of the lamed he verbs (with a few additions) can be seen in
unpointed texts. The question is whether the deletion of the final he in
lamed he verbs is because of the stress pattern of WAYYIQTOLs, thus being
pragmatic, or, whether WAYYIQTOL is an independent conjugation that in some
way is connected with short forms. There is no way to know the answer, and
the 416 examples of long WAYYIQTOLs question whether the form is connected
with short forms.

I do not know what you build on when you say that WAYYIQTOL is derived from
the jussive. I am not aware of any data from the Tanakh or from cognate
languages which would suggest such a connection. I analyze 111 WAYYIQTOLs as
modal. I addition, of the 632 first-person singular WAYYIQTOLS, 101 have
cohortative endings. How shall we explain these forms? I would also add that
all the finite and infinite forms can be modal. I have found: 5,117 YIQTOLs,
111 WAYYIQTOLs, 784 WEYIQTOLs, 394 QATALs, 1,258 WEQATALs, 74 active
participles, 77 passive participles, 71 infinitive constructs, and 76
infinitive absolutes with modal meaning. So modality is not restricted to one
form.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway








Mandag 27. Mai 2013 09:54 CEST skrev George Athas
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:

> Rolf,
>
> Yes, we do disagree on the wayyiqtol and the yiqtol verb. I'm convinced
> that they are, in fact, two distinct verb forms, as can be observed by the
> so-called apocopated form. Can you briefly explain your view of the form
> and meaning of the jussive?
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>
>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page