Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:


>I would hope that no such study would assume any particular number of
>conjugations, but would allow that to be a result of the study - and
>allow for the possibility that the number of conjugations changed
>between pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Well, maybe that is
>idealistic. But if other studies are flawed by assuming four
>conjugations, surely Rolf's studies are at least as much flawed in
>that they seem to assume two conjugations.
>
>The methodology of looking at doublets may also be suspect. Although
>there are changes between Samuel and Chronicles for example, we should
>not assume that the result of these changes is good natural Hebrew of
>the period of the Chronicler. Just ask someone to quickly update a
>passage of the King James Bible into modern English (or the Norwegian
>etc equivalent), and see how natural and perfect the result is. I
>think you will spot the difference unless a lot of care has been
>taken. No, much better analyse the Chronicler's own new compositions,
>or such works as the memoirs of Nehemiah.
>
>Peter Kirk
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)
>Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
>Date:    03/01/2000 20:46
>
>
>Dear Galia,
>
><snip>
>
>RF
>Before such a study is undertaken one should figure out how different
>assumptions will influence one's interpretation of the data. Most important
>is the number of conjugations that are assumed. In most studies four
>conjugations are assumed, and on this basis a few data is compatible with a
>change of verb meaning. If just two conjugations are assumed, even this
>limited number of data has no bearing on verb meaning.
>
><snip>
>
>I have made a detailed comparison of all the 470 verses which are dublettes
>or triplets. The results do not suggest a change in verbal meaning at the
>time of Ezra/Nehemjah because the differences go back and forth without any
>pattern. Just look at a list of paralells with Samuel/Kings (1) versus
>Chronicles (2).
>
><snip>



Dear Peter,

As far as I am aware *all* diachronic studies of Hebrew hitherto, have
taken for granted that there are four conjugations in Biblical Hebrew. Take
one example from M.F.Rooker,1990:101. His view is that WAYYIQTOL was
avoided as much as possible in Late Biblical Hebrew. As evidence he wrote:
"The use of waw conjunctive with the simple tense occurs at least
thirty-two additional times in the Book of Ezekiel.". What is the basis for
this conslusion? That there are four conjugations and that there is a
*semantic* difference between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL. There is no
methodological problem in assuming a four-component verbal model in a
thesis about the verbal system of Hebrew - provided  that the author is
aware that this is an assumption and not a fact, and that the readers are
led to understand the same. All studies must build on assumptions. However,
in a diachronic study, anything connected with the verbs, including the
numbers of conjugations, are the object for study - so nothing of this
should be assumed!



I have stated this before, and hope you will take notice of it, Peter: I do
not use as an assumption in my studies that Hebrew has just two
conjugations! But I use two other assumptions:

(1) There is nothing mystic ("divine") in Biblical Hebrew and it can and
should be studied just as other languages are studied.
(2) Unpointed manuscripts have priority above pointed ones as better
textual witnesses.

Based on (2) I start with unpointed manuscripts and ascertain that from an
orthographic point of view there are two basic groups of verbs -
prefix-forms and suffix-form. I do not draw any conclusion from this, but I
use it as a basis for questions. Some of the verbs in each group have a
prefix WAW. What is the meaning of this WAW? Is it just a conjunction or
does it have a semantic meaning? Coming to the Masoretes, there is still no
orthographic difference between the two groups, but there is a difference
in pointing. As to the suffix- group there is no difference in the vowels
used, only a minor difference in the stress. In the prefix group there is a
difference in one of the vowels used and regulrarly in the stress.

These data, however, are not unambiguous. The stress was basically used for
musical reasons as a help in the chanting of the text in the Synagogue, and
while stress has a phonemic function in differentiating between forms
written similarly, but having different meaning, it need not be phonemic in
the *clause* (just think of pausal forms). And even the small difference in
vowels *can* be pragmatic. So even the unpointed text does not explicitly
show that there semantically speaking are five different conjugations (we
must speak of possibly five, because WEYIQTOL is just as different compared
with YIQTOL  and WAYYIQTOL as WEQATAL is compared with QATAL. So I am open
for four or five or conjugations, but this should be demonstrated, not just
assumed!


And here is where I think that you in an earlier post put the matter of
proof upside down. It is the one claiming something that has the onus of
proof and not the one that does not claim anything. It is not the accused
one that shall prove his innocence, but the accuser that have to prove that
the accused one is guilty. So we have to start with the data from the
unpointed manuscripts. Everybody can see that the orthography just
distinguishes between two groups of verbs. But are there more than two?
Those who claim that should prove it, and before this is done I just see
two (without assuming just two).


Now, let us reason a little about the suffix-form, which I have been
working with for a while? How can we find two conjugations here? Some verbs
have a prefixed WAW and others not. But how can we know that this is more
than a conjunction? This question is particularly important because in
*all* instances of WEQATAL, a conjunctive force is compatible with the
syntax, so what is the difference? One can say that the function of the
WEQATALs generally are different from the function of QATAL, but is it
impossible to explain this on the basis of pragmatics (including linguistic
convention)? And are the functions really so different? I repeat my table
from an earlier post. The QATALs are used exactly in the same way as the
WEQATALs, though in different percentages (the biggest difference being the
imperative use). So again where is the *semantic* difference between the
two?

And further, what about the 357 examples with past meaning? Do they
constitute a sixth conjugation? Or, are they one group with the QATALs, and
in that case, what is the meaning of the WAW that seems to be so important
for the arguments of more than two conjugations? Or, are they one group
with the WEQATALs, and in that case, what about their past meaning? Would
not a past meaning of a part of a group WEQATAL speak against the very
essence of the difference that is postulated to exist between QATAL  and
WEQATAL? It would be interesting to hear your answer to these questions.



Of 6087 WEQATALs (ambiguous forms were skipped) I found the following
characteristics:

                                %

        PAST    357             5,8
        PRESENT 192             3,15
        FUTURE  4100            67.35
        PERFECT 55              0,9
        MODAL   147             2,41
        IMPERAT 643             10,56
        FINAL   31              0,5
        CONDIT,PROT 312         5,12
        CONDIT,APOD 123         2,02
        GNOMIC  48              0,78
        OTHER   79              1,29



By way of conclusion I would say that although the four-component model is
universally taught and almost never questioned, all students with a
critical mind should not uncritically accept it, but all the time ask: Why,
why, why? And keep in mind that it is possible to doubt the existence of a
four-component model without *assuming* that there are only two
conjugations.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo