Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

I do not think that we should proceed this thread much longer; just a few
comments. And you are of course free to make your comments.


PK
>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?

RF
Not necessarily wayward, because a study of all the verbs of the Bible, as
I am doing, reveals much greater deviations from the system as it is
understood today than these Ezekiel examples.

>RF
>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.

RF.
That you do not understand and accept my point (2) is beyond our
discussion. You accused me of making *the assumption* that Hebrew has just
two conjugations. I denied that, and what we were discussing was *my*
assumprions, not your understanding or acceptance of them.
I accept that all nuances are not seen in the orthography, and I am open
for the existence of four or five or six conjugations. But my point is that
this should not be assumed but demonstrated.

>RF
>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.

>RF
>.. 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.

RF
The normal use of "orthography" in Hebrew studies, as I have learned it, is
as a reference to consonants and not to vowels. In all the old unpointed
manuscripts we can differentiate between just two groups of verbs. Origen,
in his transliteration of Hebrew texts did not distinguish between more
than two; he did for instance not differentiate between WAYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL. The first time we see a difference that *is compatible with* but
does not prove there are five conjugations (by "conjugation" I mean a gruop
that semantically is different from another group).

The onus of proof is not the same for me and those who claim there are four
(or five) conjugations. I do not claim anything, just note that the
orthography separates two groups of verbs, the prefix-form and the
suffix-form, and I try to account for the difference in function between
these two. I further point out that the apparent differentiation of five
groups in the MT need not be more than a stylistic or syntactic phenomenon
where the conjunction WAW plays an important role (and even you will say
that two of the five, WEYIQTOL  and YIQTOL have the same semantic meaning).
So far I have not found any instance of WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL  or WEQATAL
that cannot be accounted for by the use and meaning of the conjunction WAW.
So again, I am not claiming any number of conjugation, just pointing out
what is seen by the orthography, that there are two different groups. When
you claim more specification to the point where you see four (or five)
groups with different semantic meaning, it is *your* task to prove that
these four (or five) really do exist. You ought to demonstrate two
important points: (1) that the WE- of WEQATAL  and WEYIQTOL and WAYY- of
WAYYIQTOL is more than the simple conjunction, and (2) that there is a
semantic difference between the four (or five) apparent groups.
I will of course rivew your evidence once it is contributed, and if I still
see just two conjugations I must be able the account for all uses of the
verbs from the point of view of two conjugations. If I am able to do that,
I can relax and say: Hei, on the basis of orthography I see just two
conjugations, so I will not believe in more before that has been
demonstrated.

>RF
>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!

Because I do not assume anything regarding QATAL  and WEQATAL I need not,
at this point, find any " distinctive and uncancellable component of the
semantic meaning of either QATAL or WEQATAL". All I need to do is to say
(until you have demonstrated the opposite): Nobody has so far demonstrated
a semantic difference between QATAL and WEQATAL so I  see no reason to view
them as anything but one conjugation. Then I will map the function of all
prefix-forms and all prefix-form in relation to past,present, and future
reference, to modality, to position in the clause and different other
syntactic functions, to look for a pattern.

>RF
>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.


My research is based on truth-conditional lingustics, as is the case with
Galia's work as well. In such a system past, present, and future meaning is
the backbone. And the point is that, an event that occurring before our
vantage point has past meaning, an event contemporaneous with the
vantagepoint has present meaning, and an event occurring before the
vantagepoint has future meaning. Wheter you describe this with letters or
not is unimportant. If you do not find truth-conditional linguistics
meaningful, that is your privilege.

>RF
>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.
>
RF. "The priority of the unpointed text" means that I believe that older
manuscripts generally are better than younger ones.  And this again means
that we must see the MT pointing in the light of the older manuscripts.
This is a philological approach, and it can give several interesting
results. One interesting question is: Why do we find a great number of
plene vowels in the DSS, but a supposed distinction between WAYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL is never expressed by plene vowels? I once asked E. Tov about
this, and he answered that he was not aware of any such difference in the
DSS. There are more interesting questions as well.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of oslo