Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,


See below,

PK
>Dear Rolf,
>
>I wonder if you are trying to attribute to me in the following
>paragraph something which I don't think I have ever quite said. It was
>after all you who translated my "relative (non-)past" into
>"(im)perfective". Now the following may be the case, as I suggested
>last week but with your translation made (and so the definition of
>"(im)perfective" is basically yours):
>
>     QATAL:          perfective, non-sentence initial*
>     WAYYIQTOL:      perfective, sentence initial
>     YIQTOL (long):  imperfective, non-sentence initial
>     YIQTOL (short): imperfective, modal?
>     WEQATAL:        imperfective, sentence initial
>     WEYIQTOL:       imperfective, modal?, sentence initial
>
>     * QATAL may be sentence-initial at the start of direct speech
>     only, in this context it is used instead of WAYYIQTOL.


RF
You are right, it was I that interpreted your model in the terms
perfective/imperfective aspects. You are the one who knows what your own
meaning is (1 Corinthians 2:11).


PK>
>But here is another suggestion which fits better your objections and
>also the observation that there are THREE morphologically
>distinguished verb conjugations in Hebrew: QATAL, short YIQTOL and
>long YIQTOL:
>
>     QATAL:          aspectually unmarked, non-sentence initial*
>     WEQATAL:        aspectually unmarked, sentence initial
>     YIQTOL (long):  imperfective, non-sentence initial
>     YIQTOL (short): aspectually unmarked?, modal?
>     WEYIQTOL:       aspectually unmarked?, modal?, sentence initial
>     WAYYIQTOL:      perfective, sentence initial
>
>     * QATAL may be sentence-initial at the start of direct speech
>     only
>
>On this scheme it is possible to see how all of the verb forms other
>than WAYYIQTOL may co-occur in a future or habitual context, and how
>all of the forms except for long YIQTOL may co-occur in a non-habitual
>past context. Now there may well be objections to this latter scheme,
>and I am not ready to defend it. But I think it is worth looking at
>further. At least I have found an aspect of similarity between long
>YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL: they are the aspectually marked forms, but in
>opposite directions!
>

RF
This seems to be a better model than the previous one, and you should make
some work on this scheme.
Regarding the number of morphologically distinguished conjugations, I still
just see two. There can be little doubt that the line of demarcation in the
verbal systems of the Semitic languages is drawn between
prefix-conjugation/suffix-conjugation. It seems to me that modality
(non-indicative) can be signaled in several ways in Hebrew:

(1) By a sentence-intial position of a YIQTOL, either short or long.
(2) By the short YIQTOL in other positions.
(3) By YIQTOL + cohortative.
(4) By WEQATAL (or in a few instances QATAL) following an imperative. In
this relation the WEQATAL  has an imperative force and is almost never
volitional, or express finality or purpose.
(5) By WEYIQTOL (or in a few instances YIQTOL) following an imperative. In
this relationship the WEYIQTOL expresses volition, finality, and purpose,
but does not have an imperative force.

In none of these situations is a modal interpretation *required*, but fits
very often. The five situations show that both the prefix-form and the
suffix-form can be used to signal modality.

I do not view the cohortative as a conjugation of its own, and neither is
it logical to view the short YIQTOL as an independent conjugation. Looking
at the cognate languages, we find that indicative is long and subjunctive
is short:

ARAMAIC: Indicative (2 p. pl) TIKT:BUN - Jussive: TIKT:BU
GE'EZ: Indicative: YENAGGER, Subjunctive: YENGER
ARABIC, Indicative: YAQTULU, Subjunctive: YAQTUL, YAQTULA..
UGARITIC: Indicative: YAQTULU, Subjunctive: YAQTUL, YAQTULA, )QTULA..
ACCADIAN: *Indicative*: IPARRAS, *Subjunctive*: IPRUS

I have marked Accadian with asterisks because the usual designation for
IPARRAS is "present" and for IPRUS  is "preterit", and there is a form
ending in -U in subordinated clauses which is called "subjunctive" (that
does not have the modal force we usually ascribe to "subjunctive").
However, in the wish- and asservative forms forms (precative, vetitive, and
cohortative) the short IPRUS-stem is used, connecting it with modality.

The difference in meaning between short and long prefix- forms in the
Semitic languages is one of modus, not one of tense or aspect (except
possibly in Accadian). Therefore I think we should speak of just two
different conjugations that are morphologically different.

And remember: There are short and long prefix-forms in Ugaritic, but it has
never been *demonstrated* that this difference shows a difference in
*tense* (that the short form being a preterit). How could that have been
demonstrated when nobody has ever made tests of these form where *past
meaning* and *past tense* have been systematically distinguished?

You have taken my challenge to present your model, and I have taken your
challenge, so for my part, this is the last post in this thread.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo.