[b-hebrew] The perspective of this native speaker of Modern Hebrew of Biblical Hebrew tenses

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Sun Nov 28 16:14:52 EST 2004


On 28/11/2004 20:41, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 27/11/2004 22:29, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The data above includes only WAYYIQTOLs.  The table which the 
>> comments above relates to, refers to  715 WAYYIQTOLs of 1st person 
>> singular/plural.  Of these, 101 have a paragogic he ("cohortative"),  
>> 51 are apocopated; 103 could have been apocopated but are not; and 
>> 460 could not be apocopated.  This shows clearly that non-apocopation 
>> was the trend for 1st person-forms; the opposite of what we would 
>> expect if a short form was sought whenever possible because the 
>> antecedent was a short  YAQTUL.
>>
> ...
>
> So I started a further search and found 143 words starting with 
> vav-qamats-alef and ending with he. These will include most but not 
> all of the non-apocopated 1st person singular WAYYIQTOLs, as well as 
> cases of. These also include a large number of cases of paragogic he, 
> i.e. he added on after the end of the normal verb root, the opposite 
> of apocopation (and common practice with the cohortative). I don't 
> have time to look at all of these, but it is interesting that the huge 
> majority of both non-apocopated forms and paragogic hes are in the 
> books from Ezra onwards, in the English Bible order, in other words 
> generally either late or poetic books. There are only two of them in 
> the Pentateuch: DEU 1:16,18. This suggests that there is a late 
> tendency to add paragogic he to first person WAYYIQTOLs by analogy 
> with cohortatives.
>
I found a way of refining my search based on the Westminster morphology. 
I get the following results, which basically agree with yours:

1st person WAYYIQTOL total: 708

1st person WAYYIQTOL apocopated: 51 (GEN 24:46; 31:10; 41:22; EXO 6:3; 
9:15; NUM 13:33; 23:4; 31:50; DEU 2:1,8,33,34; 3:1,1,6,18; 9:15,16; 
10:3,5; 29:4; JDG 18:4; NEH 1:4; 2:11,13,15,15; 4:8; JOB 30:9; PSA 
18:24; 38:15; 69:12; 73:14; PRO 7:7; ISA 64:5; EZK 1:4,15,27; 11:16; 
23:13; 43:8; 44:4; DAN 10:5; HOS 13:7; ZEC 2:1,5; 4:4,11,12; 5:9; 6:4)

1st person WAYYIQTOL with paragogic he: 101, of which the great majority 
are in later books (GEN 32:6; 41:11; 43:21; NUM 8:19; JOS 24:8; JDG 
6:9,10; 10:12; 12:3,3; 1SA 2:28; 28:15; 2SA 4:10; 7:9; 12:8,8; 22:24; 
EZR 7:28; 8:15,16,17,17,23,23,24,25,25,26,28,31; 9:3,3,5,5,6; NEH 1:4; 
2:1,6,9,13; 5:7,7,8,13; 6:3,8,11,12; 7:5; 12:31; 
13:7,8,9,9,10,11,11,13,17,17,19,19,21,21,22,30; JOB 1:15,16,17,19; 
19:20; 29:17; PSA 3:6; 7:5; 69:12,21; 73:16; 90:10; 
119:55,59,106,131,147,158; ECC 1:17; JER 11:18; 32:9; EZK 3:3; 9:8; 
16:11; DAN 8:13,15,17; 9:3,4,4; 10:16,16,19; 12:8; ZEC 11:13)

I couldn't find a way to check how many of the forms not marked as 
apocopated could in fact have been apocopated. I should accept your 
figure of 103. But I would be interested to see how these are 
distributed among the various books, and what the actual forms are. If 
they have a similar distribution to the paragogic he forms and nearly 
all end in he, that would suggest that they are apocopated forms with 
paragogic he rather than non-apocopated forms. This distinction may seem 
trivial as it has almost no surface effect, but it does have become 
significant if you use these forms as an argument against a Hebrew 
WAYYIQTOL being cognate with the shortened prefix form preterite in 
other Semitic languages.

None of these have been judged by the Westminster people to be WEYIQTOL 
forms. I am sorry that I doubted your data.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list