Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)

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[3]: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:29:53 -0500


Since you explicitly ask for my answers here, I will answer even at
the risk of repeating myself and boring others.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 04/01/2000 17:52

<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!

PK: How do you account for the use of WEYIQTOL rather than WAYYIQTOL
in the pointed texts of Ezekiel? Was it chance that some wayward
Masorete used a different form there?

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.

PK: Absolutely. That doesn't rule out it having unique
characteristics, most languages do.

(2) Unpointed manuscripts have priority above pointed ones as better
textual witnesses.

PK: I don't understand and don't accept your assumption (2). What
unpointed manuscripts are you talking about? DSS? In that case, why
are you including in your counts passages which are not attested in
DSS? Anyway, it is well-known that in many languages there are pairs
of really different verb forms whose difference is not reflected in
the orthography, e.g. many Qal vs. Piel pairs in unpointed BH (unless
you want to doubt all of these as well) and the same pairs in modern
Hebrew. Note also in English "read" (present, sounds like "reed") vs.
"read" (past, sounds like "red"). You are of course welcome to work
from this assumption having made it explicit, but as it is not an
assumption most people share, most people will not be able to accept
your conclusions.

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!

PK: As I understand things and with the help of our phonologist
friends on this list, it is easy to filter the pausal form factor out
of the discussion and demonstrate that there are five different forms
in the text as pointed by the Masoretes. In principle it is possible
that the distinctions are inventions of the Masoretes or of the
cantors whose chanting they wrote down. But in that case it is
difficult to explain their consistency in the bulk of the text
together with the subtle shifts in certain late books.

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...

PK: The point is that anyone who wishes to put any number on the
conjugations needs to demonstrate it, or at least to explicitly state
that this is assumed.

.. 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).

PK: I would say that everyone can see from the orthography, including
the pointing which is part of the orthography, that there are five.
But, as you point out, the situation is a little more complex than
this superficial judgment. So let both sides demonstrate their cases
equally without presuppositions. Actually you said almost this at the
end of your first paragraph above.

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?

PK: It is clear to me from your table, as I have pointed out before,
that you have failed to find any significant, i.e. distinctive and
uncancellable component of the semantic meaning of either QATAL or
WEQATAL. You simply say "QATAL can mean 11 different things. WEQATAL
can mean the same 11 different things. So they are both the same." No,
what you need to do is find one or more features of QATAL which
distinguish it from YIQTOL and/or WAYYIQTOL, and similarly for
WEQATAL. If you can demonstrate common distinguishing features for
both, I will believe you that there is no semantic difference between
the two. So far, you can still say that the sets of distinctive
features of QATAL and WEQATAL are the same - they are both empty sets!

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.

PK: I do not presuppose, as you seem to, the relevance of "past
meaning" as you define it to the analysis of Hebrew verb forms. Indeed
I have yet to see it demonstrated that the relationship between C and
RT is a factor in the choice of verb form in Hebrew, or even that C is
a definable and useful concept in Hebrew. The direction our other
thread seems to be going in is that the verb form depends on the
relationship between RT and ET, and perhaps between RT and the RT of
the previous clause, with additional factors of aspect and modality.
But my own thinking in that direction is far from mature. I am
grateful for your continuing help to my thoughts.

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.

PK: Indeed. But I don't think you will get people to assume the
priority of the unpointed text as you do.

Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page