Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Greg,

See my comments below.


>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).

My appeal to intuition is of course my weakest point. So your suggestion is
of course possible. I explain the stems QAL, PIEL etc solely as expressions
of diathesis, i.e. different relationships of agent/patient to the action.
I see the prefix/suffix conjugations as the very backbone of the whole
verbal system, as is the case in the cognate languages as well. So my
intuition is that forms which are the skeleton of the verbal system and
which the stems hang on, most likely have a different meaning when their
morphology is different. But you may of course be right.

>
>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.)

We cannot rule out your example, so my intuition must be seen in relation
to my other points. But I think that linguists studying a newly discovered
language would start with the supposition that different forms represent
different meanings. One problem with the view of Hebrew as a pidgin
language, is that no other language has "consecutive forms" comparable to
WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL. So we have absolutely no data which could suggest
how and on the basis of what such a pidgin language was formed. But again,
intuition is the weakest link,

>
>(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



Regards

Rolf



Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo