Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Wayyiqtol origins/phonology (was: die Flucht ins Prasens, Peter)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Wayyiqtol origins/phonology (was: die Flucht ins Prasens, Peter)
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:10:38 -0400


Hi Henry,

You wrote:
> >Bryan wrote:
> > Nevertheless, both the modal/preterite yaqtul and the
habitual
> > past/non-past yaqtulu forms are fientive and most often
> > morphologically indistinguishable. I can get away with
describing
> > 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
(before
> word-final short vowel loss), the *yaqtul paradigm
consistently had
> shorter endings than the *yaqtulu paradigm (absence of a
short
> mood-vowel suffix in forms which didn't have a
person/number suffix,
> as seen in yaqtul vs. yaqtulu; and shorter forms of
suffixes, as in
> yaqtuluu vs. yaqtuluuna, masc. 3rd. plur.). After the
historical
> change of word-final short vowel loss, the former yaqtul
tense was
> still originally phonologically/morphologically distinct
from former
> yaqtulu in many cases, though the existence of such
distinctions
> tended to diminish somewhat over time; however, at about
the same time
> (I assume), the original "non-volitive yaqtul tense"
became mostly
> restricted to occurring after wa+gemination (and it's
surely no
> accident that this restricted distribution allowed the
morphological
> distinction between the original *yaqtul and *yaqtulu
paradigms to be
> kept up, at a time when the original historical
phonological and
> morphological contrasts between the two paradigms no
longer
> consistently survived in the language).
>
> If you want an example of two paradigms which are truly
"most often
> morphologically indistinguishable" in Tiberian Hebrew,
it's the
> 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.

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page