Wayyiqtol origins/phonology (was: die Flucht ins Prasens, Peter)
brocine at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 1 16:10:38 EDT 1999
> >Bryan wrote:
> > Nevertheless, both the modal/preterite yaqtul and the
> > past/non-past yaqtulu forms are fientive and most often
> > morphologically indistinguishable. I can get away with
> > wayyiqtol and yiqtol as having shared meaning by
pointing to this
> > lowest common denominator: fientivity (a word? ;-) ).
They are two
> > usually indistinguishable forms with a shared meaning.
> I don't think it's true that they were ever "most often
> morphologically indistinguishable"; at early periods
> word-final short vowel loss), the *yaqtul paradigm
> shorter endings than the *yaqtulu paradigm (absence of a
> mood-vowel suffix in forms which didn't have a
> as seen in yaqtul vs. yaqtulu; and shorter forms of
suffixes, as in
> yaqtuluu vs. yaqtuluuna, masc. 3rd. plur.). After the
> change of word-final short vowel loss, the former yaqtul
> still originally phonologically/morphologically distinct
> yaqtulu in many cases, though the existence of such
> tended to diminish somewhat over time; however, at about
the same time
> (I assume), the original "non-volitive yaqtul tense"
> restricted to occurring after wa+gemination (and it's
> accident that this restricted distribution allowed the
> distinction between the original *yaqtul and *yaqtulu
paradigms to be
> kept up, at a time when the original historical
> morphological contrasts between the two paradigms no
> consistently survived in the language).
> If you want an example of two paradigms which are truly
> morphologically indistinguishable" in Tiberian Hebrew,
> jussive and imperfect.
Agreed. To all. And thanks. My apologies for not
expressing myself more clearly. In referring to yaqtul and
yaqtulu, I was actually intending to refer to the BH
"descendants" of yaqtul and yaqtulu, if we may refer to the
prefixed forms as such.
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206
More information about the b-hebrew