Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[5]: qumran (was ruth)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[5]: qumran (was ruth)
  • Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 20:18:28 -0400


Please, Rolf, don't try to shift the argument on to other matters. The
discussion about Habakkuk is not about WEQATAL, and I am not prepared
to give a definite answer on that one. And I was only suggesting as a
possibility that WAYYIQTOL may have been a pointing error for
WEYIQTOL, so I am not going to defend that option either - except to
say that it is odd for you, after claiming before that WAYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL are phonetically identical, to say now that they must have
been so phonetically distinct that the Masoretes "could hardly err at
all" by mishearing one for the other. I would suggest that the
originally distinct forms had become so similar by Masoretic times
that they were rather easily confused. But then that is NOT the basis
of my main argument. My main point, which you have failed to answer,
is to invalidate the falsification which you claim to have provided of
the hypothesis that WAYYIQTOL is a past tense, by pointing out that
your supposed example of future WAYYIQTOL is not unambuguously
non-past.

You wrote: "You turn the situation upside down when you say that I beg
the question because 1, until the opposite is proved, assume that all
prefixforms have the same semantic meaning (I exclude modality). It is
you who have the onus of proof!" Well, possibly so if I were putting
forward a new theory. But the position I am taking is broadly the
historical consensus of most writers and of ancient translations. I
think it is for you, if not necessarily to disprove this theory, to
put forward an alternative which is more convincing - I doubt if we
can find formal proof here. To me, such a theory would need to explain
the forms WAYYIQTOL (shortened form only), YIQTOL (short/jussive),
YIQTOL (full), WEYIQTOL (short), WEYIQTOL (full), QATAL and WEQATAL,
and also their distribution among material which is past, present and
future, non-volitive, volitive and otherwise modal, and whatever other
variables you wish to claim. The theory I have can (more or less) tell
me why WAYYIQTOL is used here and why full YIQTOL there etc etc. - at
least in terms of temporal setting etc if not in etymological terms. I
admit that this theory has its problems. But any advance you might
make needs to come up with a better theory with fewer problems which
answers the same questions. I think you are still a long way from
doing this, and I still suspect (but cannot prove in advance) that you
are not likely to make good progress while you continue to presuppose
(despite the differences both in form and in distribution in temporal
settings) that WAYYIQTOL (shortened) is semantically no more than
conjunction plus YIQTOL (full form).

Peter Kirk






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page