Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,




>rolf katav, RT>C,
>>These statistics are problematic.
>
>Agreed,
>because they don't state whether differentiating veqatalTI from qaTALti.
>
>Or were those statistics literally qatal, with no veqatal included?

>
>It would not be useful scholarship to mix those categories into one
>statistical base. That is so clear to people who know biblical Hebrew well.
>They all distinguish qatalti from veqatalti in classical Hebrew. To mix
>them would be like shortcircuiting a battery cell and then announcing that
>the remains have serious problems and cannot supply power.
>


No WEQATALs are included in the statistics, only QATALs.

I will study my data three times, the last time extra carefully - the QATAL
group I have been through two times, and therefore I published it. The
WEQATAL  group I have been through just once, but I view it as quite sound
as well. Here are the statistics:

WEQATAL 6087            %               QATAL  13922    %

        PAST    357     5,8             7450           53,5
        PRESENT 192     3,15            2505           18
        FUTURE  4100    67.35            965           6,9
        PERFECT 55      0,9             2605           18,7
        MODAL   147     2,41
        IMPERATIVE643   10,56
        FINAL   31      0,5
        COND,PROT312    5,12
        COND,APOD123    2,02
        GNOMIC  48      0,78
        OTHER   79      1,29
                6087


I believe the differences can be explained on the basis of syntax and
linguistic convention, that is, QATAL and WEQATAL are one and the same
conjugation which is used in different syntactic environments according to
the general agreement between the persons having the same presupposition
pool.


Regards

Rolf



Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo