Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:18:17 -0500


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your posting. I am interested to see that you seem to be
coming closer to my view. You are saying that in many Semitic
languages including Hebrew there was a short prefix verb form,
distinct from a longer prefix form used in non-past and iterative
contexts, and that this short form was used both in modal contexts and
in past narrative contexts. This seems to be the crucial evidence that
we should, at least as a working hypothesis, allow that very likely
the Hebrew short YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL is a separate conjugation from
the long YIQTOL with separate semantics. Of course if we then find
that there is no semantic difference between the two, we may conclude
that they are actually variant forms of one conjugation. But it is
premature to base studies on the presupposition that they are one
conjugation.

Then of course we have to analyse the short prefix conjugation in each
language to see how it could have been used as both modal and
preterit. I note that for irrealis conditions several Indo-European
languages use a past tense, or what appears to be a past tense such as
the subjunctive in English "if I had..." or "if I were...". Greek uses
imperfect. Russian uses the past tense plus a particle "by"; this
combination is known as the subjunctive and is widely used also in
volitive and purpose clauses. So maybe this double usage is not quite
as odd as it seems.

It seems that there is a fruitful field for further study here.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 17/01/2000 21:55


Dear Peter,

See below:

<snip>

It is correct that both Ugaritic and Accadian each have a short YQTL which
is termed "preterit". Ugaritic is more difficult to handle than Accadian
because of the lack of vowels. The contrast between the short and long form
in Ugaritic is the ending (YQTL vs YQTLW) while the difference in Accadian
is a vowel (which is seen in the script) and gemination, (IPRUS v s
IPARRAS). A parallel has been drawn between these short forms ( Ugaritic:
YQTL, Accadian a IPRUS and Hebrew WAYYIQTOL /because H. tends to use the
short form, though not allways/), and I agree (and I also add the short
YENGER (vs YENAGGER) of Ge'ez) . They are all short forms and they are all
to a great extent used with past reference, and in addition - all (Ugaritic
YQTL is somewhat ambiguous in this respect) are the stems used for modality.

<snip>

Regarding the Ugaritic "preterit" T.L. Fenton, 1963 "The Ugaritic Verbal
System" (Doctoral thesis), pp 56,82, found 561 examples of YQTL with past
meaning, 191 with future meaning, and 70 with past continuous meaning. The
Ge'ez YENGER can similarly be used for past, present, and future, and the
same is true regarding Hebrew WAYYIQTOL. As long as nobody has made a
scientific study from the point of view of "past tense versus past meaning"
in any of the four languages, it is very doubtful to claim that *any* of
these forms is a preterit.

A very interesting and most challenging fact is that in all four languages
morphological forms that to a great extent are used with past reference are
the very forms used to express the subjunctive, optative and vetitive
(negative "jussive") moods. This is a matter I will study thoroughly in the
future to reach a conclusion, but so far it seems likely that these short
forms (including WAYYIQTOL) *are* subjunctives. At first sight this seems
very strange. How can narrative accounts which are the hallmark of
indicative expression to a great extent be expressed by forms that are
modal? Galia's model, if it be correct, could solve this problem by
equating the -AY- element of WAYYIQTOL with the definite article. However,
no such solution is available for Accadian and Ge'ez.

If my view of WAYYIQTOL as a simple WAW+YIQTOL (imperfective aspect) be
true, and the end of the events simply is ignored by the verb but suggested
by the conjunction, Hebrew ( or rather, Semitic) narrative is of a very
special nature.
It seems to me that the line of demarcation between indicative and
injunctive (all kinds of modality) is somewhat differently drawn in the
Semitic languages compared with Indo-European ones. That is, some
expressions which in the Indo-European languages are indicative are
included in the modal category in the Semitic languages. One promising area
for study to approach a solution, is the study of *speech acts* ( See J.R.
Searle, 1979, Expression and Meaning Studies in the theory of Speech acts,
Cambridge) which can be viewed as modal expressions. (Regarding different
kinds of modality I recommend F.R. Palmer, 1986, "Mood and Modality",
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). A study of the use of the
negatives )L and L) of cohortative (with WAYYIQTOL and other verbs) and
different modal particles can help us understand what is included in Hebrew
injunctive.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page