Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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