Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Rolf,

See some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    19/02/2000 16:29


Peter Kirk wrote:

<snip>

Dear Peter,

Your suggestions are reasonable, but I do not see how they can throw any 
light on our principal question, whether the meaning of the verbal system 
has changed.
If we compare a text of Mishnaic Hebrew with a biblical text, we 
immediately see a difference in the use of verbs, but this is not the case 
if we compare one Hebrew text of the Tanach with another text of the 
Tanach. If we use statistics, we find that there is no significant 
difference in the occurrences of WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL in 
the different books, so why should we expect a change in verbal meaning?

PK: Because scholars more competent than I am have alleged this; and 
because languages change gradually and not by sudden steps. These 
other scholars' arguments need to be answered in detail, not simply 
dismissed. The matter is not a simple one of statistics.

It seems to me that the principal reason for suggesting a change in verbal 
meaning, is that the use of verbs in many Bible books flies in the face of 
the four-component model; that is, the suggestion is not based on 
observation but on theory! The two excellent posts of Greg regarding the 
DSS adequately illustrate the problems of a linguistic dating of the books 
in the Tanach.

PK: I would say that the use of verbs in many (even most) Bible books 
flies in the face of your two-component model. You might disagree. 
Surely we can agree that there is evidence pointing in rather 
different directions - if there had not been, the arguments would have 
been settled long ago. One explanation of the apparent contradictions, 
and especially the distribution over books of possibly anomalous 
forms, is that of diachronic change. There is surely sufficient reason 
to examine this possibility more closely.

<snip> - re Daniel's Aramaic: I take your point, PK.

Regarding your point (2). Even if a rough dating of the different books on 
linguistic grounds could be done, how would you use this information to 
answer your question about a possible change of the verbal system? Would 
you use the temporal reference of the verbs? And would that be possible if 
tense is not grammaticalized? Or would you use the premise that YIQTOL, 
WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL are different conjugations, and a different 
use of these would indicate a change of verbal meaning? In that case, which 
characteristic would you use? And would your conclusions be equally sound 
if there are just two conjugations, as I claim?

PK: In such a study I would not prejudge the issues of e.g. whether 
WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL are the same conjugation. And so I would have to 
distinguish them while looking at the data. If I were to find that 
these two forms behaved similarly (I deliberately use an irrealis 
conditional form as this seems to me clearly contrary to the observed 
facts!) I would consider them together as well as separately for the 
final analysis. On the other hand, I would feel the need for a rather 
more nuanced characterisation of verbs than your simple 
past-present-future classification, which does not fit with the Hebrew 
verb system at all.

I find diachronic dating on linguistic grounds extremely difficult, and I 
am not aware of any good data that suggest a change in the verbal meaning 
in the Tanach.

PK: Indeed it is difficult. That does not mean it should not be 
attempted. Others claim to have found data. We need to look and see 
how good it is.

Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk