Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Greg Doudna" <gdoudna AT earthlink.net>]

Rolf, thank you for your answers. I would like to follow up
on just one point.

You noted that intuitively different conjugations should 
have some semantic or inherent differences in meaning,
and you cited lack of comparative examples in languages of this
not being the case. I have thought about this. Why
not apply your analysis to the qal, piel, etc. as the conjugations,
which have differences of the kind you mean. But if you
consider yqtl and qtl, prefix- and suffix-form, as a combination
of verb either prefixed or suffixed with a form of the personal
pronoun, then you get either S-V or V-S. Now in English we have
S-V and V-S variability with no difference in meaning (except it is
done by distinct words not affixes). Why would it be impossible 
in principle to interpret the difference in function between Hebrew 
yqtl and qtl (referring to the system as it is working in BH and QH, not 
historical origins of these forms) as of no inherent difference in
meaning other than S-V or V-S variation in English (or otherwise 
in Hebrew), apart from minor nuances of emphasis and so forth. 
This would preserve your intuition that conjugations have 
differences in meaning (that would be in the qal, piel, etc.), 
but it would leave the prefix/suffix conjugations as in principle
possibly indistinguishable in inherent meaning (unless demonstrated
otherwise on other grounds).

As an analogy, imagine a language in which nouns have possessive 
pronominal suffixes and possessive pronominal prefixes which
have the same meaning and can be used as free variants.
Although I cannot cite an example, I don't see that this is
either impossible or that if such were identified, there would
be any necessary semantic difference. What basis is there 
for ruling this out of hand for prefixed-or suffixed subject 
pronouns on a language's verb conjugations? (I cannot cite a 
comparative parallel in another language, but I would actually 
be surprised if none exist.)

(Obviously the disposition of this point has nothing to do with 
the merits of your other points; I just want to address
this for the moment, which was cited as one among other
positive arguments.) 

Greg Doudna