Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)

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[2]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
  • Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:18:14 -0500


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page