[b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types
peterkirk at qaya.org
Sat Aug 13 13:01:04 EDT 2005
On 13/08/2005 07:26, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>And here is the important point: No study of Ugaritic of Akkadian verbs has
>systematically distinguished between past tense and past reference!
There is a good reason for this, Rolf, and also why no study of biblical
Hebrew other than yours has done so: it is impossible in principle to
make such distinctions (even assuming that they are theoretically valid
distinctions) with a limited corpus in a dead language.
>the apocopation which is seen in many WAYYIQTOLs relates to the last root
>consonant and not to a final U. This means that if a short preterit was the
>antecedent of Hebrew WAYYIQTOL, either Ugaritic YAQTUL or Akkadian
>IPRUS could have been such an antecedent. Both forms hardly could be such an
>antecedent, because their shortness is different.
The phonological argument is that Hebrew lost all word final short
vowels and so final -U of YAQTULU; but when the root ended in yod or vav
(i.e. a lamed-he verb) the -U of the YAQTULU form merged with the final
part of the root to form a long vowel, which was not lost. A distinction
was also preserved in the Hiphil because the final -U affected the final
vowel sound within the root. Thus full (non-apocopated) YIQTOL derives
from YAQTULU, and apocopated YIQTOL from YAQTUL, in a phonologically
The connection with IPARRAS is indeed less clear. But east Semitic is in
general far more remote from Hebrew than are Ugaritic, Phoenician,
Aramaic and Arabic, all of which have a short form like YAQTUL distinct
from a longer form with a final -U and/or -N.
>Arabic resembles Ugaritic as far as the indicative/jussive distinctions are
>concerned. In Arabic we find the following forms: indicative YAQTULU,
>subjunctive: YAQTULA, jussive: YAQTUL, and energic: YAQTULAN(NA). So, the
>Ugaritic opposition YAQTUL/YAQTULU is seen in Arabic in the opposition
>between indicative and jussive. In Phoenician and Biblical Aramaic
>indicative has final N while jussive does not have this N. Thus, the
>indicative/jussive difference in these languages is between long and short
>forms as well.
Exactly as in Hebrew: the long form, derived from YAQTULU, is
indicative, and the short form, derived from YAQTUL, is jussive.
It seems clear from the morphology that Hebrew WAYYIQTOL is derived from
some prefix plus the short YIQTOL (remembering that only a very small
proportion of WAYYIQTOLs are not apocopated where they could be). And
this prefix is not simply the vav conjunction, because of the patah and
especially the dagesh in the yod (or tav or nun). It seems to be a
semantic innovation in Hebrew that this combination is used as an
indicative mostly with past reference. But the basic verb form is not an
innovation, but rather a product of the application of regular
phonological changes to the common NW Semitic YAQTUL form.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
More information about the b-hebrew