Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Henry Churchyard" <churchh AT usa.net>]

> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>

> I do not use as an assumption in my studies that Hebrew has just two
> conjugations!  But I use two other assumptions: (2) Unpointed
> manuscripts have priority above pointed ones as better textual
> witnesses.  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,
> on the basis of orthography I see just two conjugations.  As a
> matter of fact, there is no indication that the WAW prefixed to
> YIQTOLs is anything but a conjunction before the Masoretes pointed
> the text.

Unfortunately, some important morphological distinctions are simply
not encoded in the consonantal orthography, due to the nature of the
consonant-only orthographic system (one semi-random example is the
contrast between the prepositions k-, l-, and b- followed by a
definite article vs. k-, l-, and b- followed by a noun not prefixed
with a definite article).  In such cases, it is fair to assume that
the Masoretes may have mispointed the contrast incorrectly in some few
individual forms (since the earlier consonant-only written text did
not give them any guidance).  However, this does _not_ create any
particular reasonable presumption that there was originally an
undifferentiated single form (i.e. a morphological unity) that was
later artificially differentiated by the Masoretes.  (This might
perhaps be the case, but if so, it would have to be specifically
proved in detail, and not vaguely presumed.)

Of course lamed-he verbs show truncated "short" forms in certain
categories (often including wayyiqtol, but generally not w@yiqtol)
even in the consonantal orthography, as pointed out by Peter Kirk:

>> 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 prefix forms.  I think this is found fairly consistently in
>> all MSS including ancient unpointed ones.  You need to explain this
>> also.


>> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org

>> PK: I agree that the WAW's in all cases act as a conjunction. But
>> that doesn't mean that after the WAW's have been stripped off
>> -AYYIQTOL and -EYIQTOL mean the same.  Indeed, there is a clear
>> difference between the context in verse 4 where WEYIQTOLs are
>> consistently used and in verses 8-9 where WAYYIQTOLs are
>> consistently used.  I don't know how you can explain how the
>> Masoretes were able to make this consistent distinction if they
>> were not actually hearing a difference between WEYIQTOL and
>> WAYYIQTOL.

> Nobody has ever given an explanation based on evidence what these
> supposed elements "E" and "AY" are, what their origin is, and what
> their force is.

The morphemic segmentation of w@yiqtol and wayyiqtol must be w@-yiqtol
and wa-C-yiqtol, so there are no morphemic elements "@" or "ay".
(There is an assimilating consonantal element in waCyiqtol whose lack
of definite phonological features in attested Hebrew makes it
difficult to trace its exact historical origin, but there's nothing
especially implausible about this.)


> WAW is never anything but a conjunction, and that there is no
> semantic difference between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL and between WEQATAL
> and QATAL.  [...] how can anyone claim that the WAYY-element has a
> semantic meaning apart from its force as a conjunction?

Waw is indeed nothing but a conjunction, but it's followed by two
historically different verb conjugations in w@yiqtol vs. wayyiqtol
(historically *wa-yaqtulu vs. *wa-C-yaqtul).  So the difference in
meaning here is not necessarily caused by the absence vs. presence of
the assimilating consonant (and certainly is not caused by the
difference between the vowels _sh@wa_ vs.  _pathah._, which merely
follows automatically phonologically from the absence vs. presence of
the assimilating consonant, see further below), but instead comes from
the original contrast in meaning between *yaqtul vs. *yaqtulu.
I can't say whether the meaning difference between these two
conjugations was "semantic" in your strict sense of the term (I'm
simply not qualified to discuss such topics), but I'm not sure that it
really matters; it's enough to show that *yaqtul forms have a general
past/"preterite"/perfect pattern of usage in Akkadian, Arabic (the
pseudo-"jussive" after _lam_) etc. in order to show some basic
continuity in meaning between reconstructed *yaqtul and Tiberian
wayyiqtol.


> I did not at the outset assume any number of conjugations, but I
> would ask: How can we know there are more conjugations than the two
> the orthography (consonants) indicate?

Leaving aside all considerations of synchronic semantics (which many
have analyzed somewhat differently than you have done), one answer is:
detailed diachronic phonological reconstructions, and comparative
Semitic morphology.


> neither is it logical to view the short YIQTOL as an independent
> conjugation of its own.  Looking at the cognate languages, we find
> that indicative is long and subjunctive is short: 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 [prefix vs. suffix] that are
> morphologically different.

Yes, there are old *yaqtul type jussives as well as old *yaqtul type
"preterites" (using the word "preterite" as a convenient vague label),
as you yourself said:

> short forms 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.


However "long prefix" forms of the particular shape *yaqtulu are a
localized innovation within Semitic (when used as an indicative).  (I
fail to see what specific morphological relevance Ge'ez YENAGGER or
Akkadian IPARRAS have to *yaqtulu, or to either jussive or preterite
*yaqtul, other than the extremely vague common resemblance of all
being so-called "prefix" forms.  I don't want to discuss Ugaritic at
all, since it's apparently not entirely clear that there's a
consistent yaqtul vs. yaqtulu morphological contrast, and I'm not
particularly knowledgable about non-phonological details of Ugaritic.)


> (2) The short prefix-form is connected with modality (clearly in
> Hebrew, Aramaic, Accadian, and Ge=B4ez), and no scheme showing how
> to differentiate between the two, has been constructed.
 
The same basic stem shape *yaqtul appears in conjugations with both
jussive and "preterite" meanings, but in each specific case that I
know about, there are specific morphological accompaniments that serve
to distinguish the two (in Akkadian, mood suffixes and prefixes; in
Hebrew, the prefix waC- attached to most preterite forms).


> 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.

I think it's likely that the more typical early Semitic situation was
to have several verb conjugations, all of the "prefix" type but not
necessarily closely resembling each other in basic stem shape (such as
Akkadian IPRUS, IPARRAS, and IPTARAS); with the suffix conjugation off
to one side as a stative semi-nominal thing that was not necessarily
much of a major player in the overall verbal system.  Then there was
an innovation in a "north-central" block of languages (i.e. Canaanite,
Aramaic, and Arabic) in which the only prefix forms that survived
(i.e. non-preterite *yaqtulu, preterite *yaqtul, and jussive *yaqtul)
all happened to resemble each other in basic phonological stem shape,
and the former stative quasi-nominal suffix conjugation became more
important.  (It may possibly true that the "north central" *yaqtulu
has some historical connection with the Akkadian subjunctive, but if
so, it seems to have early detached itself from such an ultimate
origin to become a separate, mostly indicative, conjunction in the
"north central" block of languages.)

Eventually, however, the originally separate prefix conjugations
became slight morphological variants of one sole basic prefix
conjugation in these languages (though traces of the original meaning
differences between the conjugations survived in some cases), so that
the most important contrast in the verbal system now came to be one of
suffix conjugation vs. (undifferentiated) prefix conjugation.  But
this would not originally be the most important contrast in the
Semitic verbal system, nor the most important contrast in other
Semitic languages outside the "north-central" block.  Thus I agree
with Peter:

>> PK: in Akkadian there is a "short" prefix form (one of the ones
>> listed as "subjunctive" below) commonly used in what appears to be
>> narrative, with no clear indication of modality in the context,
>> just as WAYYIQTOL is used in Hebrew narrative?  If so, I think that
>> must be a strong argument for a distinction between two prefix
>> forms going back to proto-Semitic, one of which is "imperfective"
>> and the other (apart from its modal uses) is something like a
>> preterit.  You wrote: "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."  But to me, this
>> evidence puts a very large measure of doubt on this statement.

Actually, there is not much evidence for "long" *yaqtulu as an
indicative in Proto-Semitic; rather this seems to be a "north-central"
innovation, as discussed above.  Sometimes the impressive phonological
and morphological archaism of Arabic can give one the impression that
the structure of the Arabic verbal system is also conservative, but
this is not the case (see my earlier post about no living language
being uniformly historically conservative).  As mentioned above, the
Arabic qatala perfect likely corresponds to a proto-Semitic stative
quasi-nominal thing, while if the Arabic yaqtulu imperfect directly
descends from anything in Proto-Semitic, this was almost certainly
_not_ indicative.  An original proto-Semitic past indicative only
survives into Arabic in the restrictive context of the pseudo-jussive
after _lam_, while no original proto-Semitic non-past indicative seems
to have survived into Arabic at all (at least not in the
Grund/Qal/Pa`al binyan).


> (2) How can WAYYIQTOL be viewed as identical with YIQTOL when it is
> so different in form?  Answer: Nobody has ever conclusively
> demonstrated that the WAYY-element change the meaning of the
> following YIQTOL.  It need not have any semantic meaning.  And even
> the small difference in vowels *can* be pragmatic.
> (b) Nobody has shown what the -AY- element of WAYY- is, let alone
> its supposed power to change the meaning of a verb.  (Henry
> Churchyard has not conclusively shown that -AY- is an element that
> can change the meaning of YIQTOL.)

I didn't prove it, because I don't in fact believe it.  The meaning
difference does not necessarily have anything to do with the presence
of the indefinite assimilated consonant of unknown historical origin
in wa-C-yiqtol, but rather follows from the clear historical
morphological differences between the -yiqtol in wayyiqtol and
freestanding yiqtol elsewhere.  It may or may not be the case that the
somewhat consistent difference in meaning between Hebrew yiqtol and
wayyiqtol is "semantic" in your special strict sense of the term, but
it seems like there are a lot of things which are not "semantic" in
your special strict sense of the term.  I think that if we find a
difference in external phonological form which rather consistently
correlates with a difference in meaning (even if this difference is
not absolutely 100% consistent), then we must call this a
"morphological" difference in the usual accepted sense of the term.
For that matter, it appears that English plural morphology is not
truly "semantic", since it is not "uncancellable" -- if you're "five
foot two" tall, you're actually five _feet_ two tall, and if there's
"one scissors" on the table, then there's only one physical object on
the table (in the sense relevant to English plural morphology).  So
should we assume that the English noun plural suffix has no particular
inherent meaning in the true "semantic" sense?  If so, I'm not sure
how this notion of "semantics" is all that relevant in dealing with
real-world languages.


[Rolf Furuli on phonological differentiation of wayyiqtol vs. yiqtol
and its origins (long quoted passage, sorry):]
 
> Coming to the Masoretes, there is still no [consonantal]
> 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).  The
> difference [between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL] in MT need not have
> semantic meaning.  We know that the pausal forms indicate a form of
> stress that could help those hearing the recitation of the text.
> The WE and WAYY-element need not be more than a slightly different
> way of pronouncing YIQTOLs with a prefixed conjuntion to help the
> hearers differentiate between the same verbs used in narrative and
> non-narrative texts, without any intention of signaling a *semantic*
> difference between the forms.  If now the Masoretes heard the two
> verbs being stressed differently, how would that affect
> vocalization?  The WEYIQTOL has two open syllables and the last is
> closed.  It has the normal ultimate stress, and because the closed
> syllable is stressed, the short patah is OK.  The WAYYIQTOL,
> however, has penultimate stress, and this would, according to the
> phonetic laws, demand a different vocalization.  Because of the
> stress, we either would have expected a pretonic qamets in the first
> syllable or a patah together with gemination; a shewa in a supposed
> open first open syllable before the stress, would not be expected.
> This means, as far as I can see, that a combination of the hearing
> of penultimate stress in the synagogue, and the phonetic laws
> applied by the Masoretes (I leave alone those verbs that can be
> apocopated), can account for all the differences between WAYYOMER
> and W:YOMAR in (1).  If this is true, there need not be an extra
> element in addition to WAW in any of the WAYYIQTOLs with stable
> roots.  But what is the basis of the supposed difference in stress
> in the Synagogues of Masoretic times.  Following this line, it would
> not be unreasonable when two forms with similar morhology but
> different use are found, to stress them differently.  Particularly
> when the text for the most part was read aloud, this would be a help
> for the listeners.  The penultimate stress of the WAYYIQTOLs would
> from this point of view fit the more staccato narrative recitation,
> while the normal ultimate stress would fit direct speech,
> future/modality better.  Just as pausal stress has no phonemic
> meaning, so the penultimate stress of the WAYYIQTOLs need not have
> any phonmic meaning.  The ultimate stress of some WEQATALs could be
> explained the same way.  A hypothesis, which I am going to test, is
> that the difference is primarily based on rhytm or stress, and this
> again is related to the genre of the text and the meaning of
> clauses.  The pausal forms.  for instance, signal a particular
> stress the end of sentences.  To find the right rhytm in narrative
> accounts, one device could have been a retraction of the stress of
> the sentence-initial verb, thus the WAYYIQTOL was born.  My
> suggestion, therefore, is very simple.  In the unpointed texts (and
> in the reading of them) before the Masoretes, there was no
> difference in the stress of finite verbs with proclitic WAW.  In our
> Christian era when Hebrew gradually lost its position as a living
> spoken language and only few people spoke it - in a world dominated
> by Aramaic and Arabic - to help those listening to the recitation of
> the Hebrew text in the Synagogue, the stress pattern we know was
> introduced.  There was no grammatical reason for this, only the
> intention to help the listeners to understand the text better.  The
> Masoretes followed this stress pattern with the consequences we know
> - also without any grammatical intentions.  As a matter of fact
> there is no distinction between WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in
> unpointed texts.  The first time the distinction appears is in the
> MT.  This means that at a point of time after the texts were
> writtten and latest at the appearance of the Masoretes, the
> distinction between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL was made, either in
> pronunciation or in script (I guess there had been a difference in
> stress in the recitation of the text in the synagogue for a long
> time before the Masoretes.  But on which basis was the
> differentiation made?

Rolf, I don't think you would accept this kind of vague "naive
functionalism" or "just so story" explanation in your own domain of
syntax/semantics, so why should it turn out to be more acceptable in
phonology?  If you examine Hebrew main-stress positioning from a
strictly phonological point of view, you see that there's a highly
structured and patterned system of determining stress placement, with
certain residual exceptions in a minority of cases.  For instance, it
can be said that most forms in Tiberian Hebrew (i.e. those not subject
to special synchronic stress shifts) show main stress on the
penultimate syllable in forms that have a synchronic underlying shape
which is consonant-final, but final-syllable stress in underlyingly
consonant-final forms.  Having established this generalization, one
can then go on to examine the apparent exceptions to the pattern
(which turn out to be highly significant for the reconstruction of the
verb system); but one wouldn't even be able to see the basic pattern
without conducting a serious specific analysis of the phonological
data in terms of sophisticated phonological theory (where the patterns
and their changes through time can't be analyzed very clearly without
recognizing concepts such as "synchronic underlying forms" and
"synchronic stress-shifts").

One of the significant exceptions to the basic Tiberian
stress-positioning generalization is the wayyiqtol (in attested
Tiberian Hebrew such anomalous stress is mainly confined to roots
which are weak in some respect, but with residual evidence that this
anomalous wayyiqtol stress originally applied to strong roots also).
If you probe this Tiberian wayyiqtol stress anomaly further, using the
tools of historical phonology and language reconstruction, it becomes
clear that such anomalous stress indicates that Tiberian wayyiqtol
goes straight back to consonant-final *yaqtul, while Tiberian regular
yiqtol goes straight back to original vowel-final *yaqtulu (this is
the main argument of chapter 4 of my dissertation, though in that
chapter I found it more convenient to adopt an order of presentation
which seems to trace things forward in time, instead of appearing to
deduce reconstructions backwards in time).

My historical phonological account can be refuted be showing that my
reconstructions are wrong in specific historical phonological details;
but it cannot be refuted by a semantic-only analysis of synchronic
Tiberian verb forms (no matter how intense), nor by a vague "naive
functionalism" phonological explanation which does not take into
account the full richness and complexity of patterning of the detailed
phonological alternations.

It is true that Tiberian Hebrew pausal forms do have a limited
"functional" value in marking words at the end of phonological
phrases.  But the specific phonological patterns governing the
distribution of pausal stress-alternations are the same for stress
alternations which involve the "conversive tenses" as for stress
alternations which do not involve the "conversive tenses".  No one has
claimed that the alternation between pausal [yiqtooluu] and non-pausal
[yiqt@luu] was caused by semantic factors, so it is not clear why the
wayyiqtol stress-shift should have a semantic origin.  (It is true
that the w@qatalta stress-shift may have arisen analogically on the
model of the wayyiqtol stress-shift, but this is a case of
highly-specific phonological/morphological analogy from one
stress-alternation pattern to another, not an extremely vague theory
of semantics manifesting itself directly into phonology.)


> (2) How can WAYYIQTOL be viewed as identical with YIQTOL when it is
> so different in form?  Answer: In unpointed texts the difference is
> minimal and it is not demonstrated any morphological difference
> before the Masoretes.  Evidence from Josephus and Origen, and from
> the Masoretes themselves suggest that shewa was generally pronounced
> by an "a"-sound just as patah, but shewa could also be colored by
> other vowels.  If the intention was to distinguish between two
> different conjugations (WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL) by help of the
> vocalization, shewa versus patah were the worst possible choice,
> because of their similarity. We therefore do not have any indication
> that the timbre of shewa and patah in the two verbs of (1) was
> different.

It's true that there's basically absolutely no difference whatsoever
in the Tiberian system between a _sh@wa_ grapheme (under a
non-guttural consonant letter) representing a vocal _sh@wa_ sound, and
a _h.at.eph-pathah._ grapheme (under a non-guttural consonant letter)
representing a vocal _sh@wa_ sound (the latter is simply a slightly
less ambiguous orthography for writing the same thing).

But on the other hand, there's quite a bit of phonological difference
between _sh@wa_ in an open syllable and _pathah._ in a closed
syllable, so I can't see how your statement that there is no effective
phonological difference between [w@yiqtol] and [wayyiqtol] makes too
much sense, regardless of whether Josephus or Origen consistently
transcribed them differently into Greek.  The idea of a "reversible"
phonological transliteration (which renders one writing system into
another writing system without loss of information) was basically
unknown to the ancient world; nor was the Greek alphabet particularly
suited to such a reversible transcription; nor can you say that early
Greek transcriptions transcribe the same dialect which underlies the
Masoretic orthography (in fact there are clear divergences, in a more
archaic phonological shape of unsuffixed segholate nouns, and other
differences).  This means that while these types of external
transcriptions are useful as a cross-check in certain cases (i.e. to
show that certain features of the Tiberian pointing do or do not have
a solid historical basis), they are basically useless for trying to
"prove" that phonological oppositions that appear to be significant in
Tiberian were in fact phonologically significant in Tiberian.  (Going
down this path was what led Sperber to conclude that Tiberian Hebrew
had 2 and 1/2 vowels and 10 consonants, or something, and I don't
think you want to follow him there.)

Nor is it true that the -a- vowel in wayyiqtol is in the least
mysterious, or in need of any particular special explanation.  This is
simply the normal original short "a" vowel of the conjunction, which
was diachronically *wa- (as in Arabic), and which in Tiberian Hebrew
is still often waa- with lengthened vowel (as in [waabhoohuu] in
Genesis 1:1 on down).  Such a historical short -a- vowel regularly
becomes Tiberian _pathah._ in closed pre-main-stress syllables, and
either Tiberian _sh@wa_ or Tiberian _qames._ in open pre-main-stress
syllables, by normal diachronic phonological developments.  (The
conjunction does not generally take on the shape wa- in Tiberian
elsewhere than in the wayyiqtol -- except when preceding a guttural +
_hat.eph-pathah._ sequence -- because the conjunction is not generally
followed by a geminate or a true consonant cluster elsewhere.)


> 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?

Were short -a- vowels in closed unstressed syllables ever written
_plene_ in the Dead Sea scrolls (I would be surprised if this were
true)?  If not, then I'm not clear what distinctions between wayyiqtol
and w@yiqtol forms (from non-_lamedh-he_ roots) that you would expect
to be notated in Dead Sea Scroll orthography.  It's not clear to me
that either the closed syllable shortening or stress position
differences in such forms [wayyaaqom] vs. [yaaqoom] would have been
orthographically noted either.  It is interesting that the Dead Sea
Scroll orthography doesn't show certain types of vowel reduction (so
that both Tiberian [yiqt@luu] and [yiqtooluu] can be written with an
orthographic _waw_, indicating that whether or not pausal stress
alternations existed in DSS pronunciation, vowel reduction didn't
exist in its Tiberian form); however, I'm not sure that this implies
anything for wayyiqtol's in DSS.


> (1) No procedure for distinguishing between the conjunction WE
> prefixed to a YIQTOL and the WE- element of WEYIQTOL has been worked
> out.

It's true that there's no strictly phonological evidence for w@yiqtol
as a separate conjugation (as there is synchronic phonological
evidence for the contrast between the [yiqtol] forms in wayyiqtol
vs. w@yiqtol having separate diachronic origins), so that any attempt
to prove the distinctness of a w@yiqtol conjugation is not bolstered
by phonological evidence.

_____________________

Galia Hatav wrote:

>> Last Spring I suggested that <wayyiqtol> is composed of three
>> elements: <w>, <ay> and <yiqtol>.  The form of <yiqtol> I analyzed
>> in my book as modal in the sense of modal logic, i.e., a clause
>> with a verb in this form quantifies over possible worlds.  The
>> morpheme <ay>, I suggested last spring, functions to anchor the
>> situation to the Actual World. It does the same job as a definite
>> article does for noun phrases.  The question is, whether the
>> definite article for NPs is only an analogy to the <ay> in
>> <wayyiqtol>, or as you (and other people) suggested, that actually
>> the <ay> is a derivation of the definite article.

From morphological and phonological considerations, there can be no
-ay- morpheme here; whether the waC- in wayyiqtol was contracted from
wa-haC-yiqtol is a speculation which cannot be easily proved or
disproved.  However, what there is detailed evidence available to show
(as I've said), is that the -yiqtol in wayyiqtol is not the "same" as
free-standing yiqtol.  In that light, explaining the meaning
difference between wayyiqtol and yiqtol as due to the unknown
assimilating consonant in wa-C-yiqtol is somewhat redundant...

Though I can't claim to know that suffixing an article between
conjunction and short yaqtul would have been definitely
morphologically impossible, this explanation doesn't really "explain"
very much even phonologically, since we don't know the identity of the
assimilating consonant of the article, so that the hypothesis
wa-haC-yiqtol > waC-yiqtol > wayyiqtol still doesn't tell us what the
"C" was, or what its original morphological function (if any) was.


> When we consider this example, we should keep in mind that although
> we speak about an -AY- element in WAYYIQTOL, this is only
> descriptive. There is of course no such element existent, but the
> characteristic is *gemination* in 3. person forms and *compensatory
> lengthening* in 1 person.  singualar.

Yes, there is of course no morphological "y" element in way- prefixed
to wayyiqtol; rather, there is an indeterminate consonant which
assimilates to the following consonant to form a geminate (as also in
the definite article).

_______________________

>> Subject: More ?'s about verbs
>> From: "Rodney K. Duke" <dukerk AT appstate.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:45:17 -0500

>> 2) What then, if the conjunction found with wayyiqtol is some kind
>> of narrative conjunction that is distinct from the conjunction of
>> simple waw?  Is there any comparative philological evidence that
>> might support such a thesis?  (I've seen a little about the Arabic
>> =93fa,=94 but don't know how much weight it carries.)

I agree with Rolf Furuli (rather than Dave Washburn) that wa- in
wayyiqtol is very likely to be the ordinary conjunction (one of the
most important indications of this comes from diachronic phonology,
namely the immunity from the normal historical word-initial #w- -> #y-
shift that both the conjunction and waC- suspiciously share).  Again,
the real answer is to be found in the fact that -yiqtol in wayyiqtol
is not in fact the "same" yiqtol as other yiqtol.  When only
considering a schematic overview of the synchronic Tiberian Biblical
Hebrew system, this may seem counterintuitive, but a detailed analysis
of phonology, and comparisons with other Semitic languages, support
this conclusion.  So I stand by what I posted earlier to this list:

   ...Despite various doubts and alternative hypotheses that have been
   raised over the past century and more, the most likely historical
   origin of the Biblical Hebrew wayyiqtol is still conjunction wa- +
   assimilating consonant + yaqtul preterite tense.  (This pretty much
   remains the default theory -- despite certain long-standing
   unanswered question connected with it -- so that someone proposing
   a different account of the historical origins of the Hebrew
   wayyiqtol would have to support it with highly specific evidence to
   gain very widespread acceptance.)


>> Is there a form of the conjunction (i.e. waw with or without an
>> a-class vowel) that could explain:

>> wa+ *yaqtula evolving into weyiqtol (propretonic reduction?), and
>> wa + *yaqtul (preterite) evolving into wayyiqtol?

No, there's not really any purely phonological explanation for such
consonant gemination.  Sometimes rather than an original short *u
vowel undergoing pretonic lengthening, the following consonant will
geminate instead; but this is rather rare with original short *a
vowels.  (It's true, though, that the vowel lengthening in
1st. sg. [waa'eqtool] theoretically might be explained as due to
pretonic lengthening before the originally main-stressed middle
syllable; however, there are also other, probably more valid,
alternative explanations available for deriving the lengthened vowel
here.)


>> 3) I realize that the morphological difference between the short and
>> long prefixed conjugations disappeared by 1100 BCE; however R. Buth
>> on this list and others argue for the continued existence of the
>> preterite.

Original word-final short vowels disappeared around 1100 BC, so that
the original difference between "preterite" yaqtulu and "imperfect"
yaqtul would then no longer be marked by contrasts in suffixal
morphology in most cases; however, this doesn't mean that all contrast
between "preterite" and "imperfect" immediately collapsed.

--
Henry Churchyard   churchh AT usa.net   http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/