Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: 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[4]: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)
  • Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:55:28 -0500


Dear Rolf,

I also do not want to go on with this much longer. But I will make a
few more points below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Diachronic Hebrew (was <wayyiqtol> again)
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 15:03


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.

<snip>

>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).

PK: I was using "orthography" in the sense I have learned it in more
general studies as meaning the entire writing system, all of the marks
made on the paper or whatever to represent the language. To avoid
confusion, I will speak of "writing system" instead. As usual, half of
the problem with understanding what you write is the terminology you
use.

PK: There is of course even in the unpointed text a difference (apart
from the W) between non-jussive YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL in a significant
minority of verb forms, the difference between long and short suffix
forms. I think this is found fairly consistently in all MSS including
ancient unpointed ones. You need to explain this also.

PK: As for Origen, I don't rate his evidence highly. If I remember
rightly, he knew no Hebrew and presumably based his transliteration on
how he heard and rendered into the Greek vowel system and orthography
the Hebrew text being read aloud. The reader probably didn't know much
Hebrew either and was relying on memory rather than understanding to
correctly vocalise the text. So either the reader was failing to
clearly distinguish WEYIQTOL from WAYYIQTOL, or he was distinguishing
them but the vowels in both fell within the area of sound which Origen
rendered with alpha. And then we must remember that we only have some
very small fragments of Origen's Hebrew transliteration. So I would
not take this as a decisive witness.

RF: 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...

PK: And I "do not claim anything, just note that" the full writing
system including vowel points separates five groups of verbs, and I
try to account for the differences between them all. How is the onus
of proof different?

RF:... 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...

PK: I think (1) will be a consequence of (2). The forms exist, in the
pointed text. The task is to demonstrate how they relate to one
another semantically. I don't take this as my personal task, but it is
a task which the scholarly community as a whole has been busy with and
in which I may be able to play a part.

RF: ...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.

<snip>
>
>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.

PK: It is, I am sure, very meaningful and helpful with many languages.
But you cannot assume it to be helpful for Hebrew. Indeed your data
below seem to show clearly that WEQATAL cannot be classified clearly
on the past-present-future axis or backbone. You have said the same
about QATAL and, less recently, WAYYIQTOL. So this seems to be
evidence that Hebrew is tenseless, as other languages are known to be.
(An alternative way to rescue the relevance of tense in Hebrew would
be to refine one's notion of tense in Hebrew to make a better fit with
the facts, e.g. one might in principle be able to find that these past
WEQATALs are in some sense "future in the past" or "relative future".)
I don't see how a system in which past, present and future is the
backbone can be especially helpful for study of tenseless languages.

>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 ...

<snip>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page