[b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Aug 1 07:55:23 EDT 2005


On 01/08/2005 12:38, Rolf Furuli wrote:

>Dear Peter,
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
>To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
>Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types
>
>
>  
>
>>On 01/08/2005 08:15, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>The distinction between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL is often believed to be one
>>>of apocopation, but that is not correct. The only verbs whose apocopation
>>>can be seen in unpointed texts are lamed he verbs. ...
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>And also in certain hiphil forms, such as the example I mentioned.
>>
>>    
>>
>No! We know from the DSS that plene vowels  to some extent were added. When 
>we find  YODs before the root consonants of  YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW in 
>some cases and these YODs are lacking in others, we cannot know whether the 
>verbs originally were written defectively and each YOD  is an added plene 
>vowel, or whether the YODs were original parts of the verb form, and thus 
>were deleted in the forms forms without YODs. Therefore, the only examples 
>from unpointed texts where apocopated forms can be seen are lamed he verbs.
>
>  
>
OK, I accept that the plene vowels may have been added i.e. not in the 
very earliest texts. This is of course not true of all plene vowels in 
the Tanakh, as we see consistent distinctions in their distribution 
between earlier and later books e.g. in the spelling of the name Dawid, 
but it might be true of the regular non-apocopated hiphil forms. 
Nevertheless, the Masoretic text does generally distinguish between 
regular YIQTOL forms of hiphil with plene yod and WAYYIQTOL forms 
without plene yod. It is therefore meaningful to investigate the 
exceptions to this rule.

And I note that the case I mentioned, WYGY(W in Psalm 107:18, is 
especially interesting because, in its environment before ayin, the 
expected apocopated form has a patah or qamats (replacing tsere) cf. the 
singular form WAYYAGGA` in Isaiah 6:7 etc. Yod can never be a plene 
vowel for an "a" sound (except possibly in the ending -AYW), and so the 
plene vowel yod indicates a different pronunciation, in the psalm 
WAYYAGGI`U rather than WAYYAGGA`U which would be expected by comparison 
with the Isaiah case. Such a pronunciation distinction suggests a 
meaning distinction.

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




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list