Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: WAYYIQTOL

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: WAYYIQTOL
  • Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:57:21 +0100


Dear George,

I appreciate your thoughts below and would like to add a few points. I have compared all the normal and apocopated verbs of WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and YIQTOL, and my conclusion is that there is no systematic difference along the lines: apocopation-WAYYIQTOL and non-apocopation-WEYIQTOL/YIQTOL. Apocopation can be explained on the basis of phonetics and linguistic convention and need in no way be semantic. A study of Ugaritic and Akkadian verbs and the Akkadian-Canaanite forms of the Amarna tablets reveal two things, 1) that an old short preterit is not established in any of these languages, and 2) that the supposed links between the apocopated forms of Classical Hebrew and the short prefix forms in the mentioned languages are very weak, if they exist at all.

In order to throw light on a possible Masoretic invention of WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL one should not only read the tractates of the Masoretes but take a look at the works of the Karites as well. I recommend G. Kahn (2000). "The early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought," Brill, Leyden. In my view, the most basic error in modern grammatical works on Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian, and the Amarna tablets is that so few scholars differentiate between past *tense* and past *reference* (and future tense and future reference as well). It seems that most scholars take for granted that past reference=past tense. One of the few scholars who make this distinction is Z. Ben-Hayyim (2000). "A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew," Eisenbrauns

The Karaites in the 11th century seem to a certain degree to have distinguished between past reference and past tense, but it seems that the first, and possibly later, Masoretes did not distinguish between the two. The distinction between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL which is based on shewa versus patah is very small, particularly when we realize that the default pronunciation of shewa in Masoretic times was as a "a"-sound similar to the pronunciation of patah. I therefore suggest that the Masoretes pointed WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL as they did, because so many of these forms are used with past and future reference respectively, and not because they viewed then as semantic units different from YIQTOL and QATAL respectively. That is also the reason why the Masoretes "erred" in so many instances in relation to their own system, and WAYYIQTOL often does not represent past reference and WEQATAL does not represent future reference in the poetic and prophetic books. Because in these books it is often difficult to establish the correct time reference. So my suggestion is that the Masoretes, who were not grammarians, did not intend to create four different semantic units (WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL), but they simply made a small distinction between groups of verbs which often had past or future reference. However, some Qaraites and other early grammarians reinterpreted the Masoretic pointing in *semantic* terms. Thus the system of four conjugations that we have today were created.


Best regards,

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

I concur with the possibility of the thesis that the Masoretes invented the
difference between conventional waw /we-/ and consecutive waw /wa-/. I'm not
sure of its veracity, but it is certainly plausible.

The reason for the possibility stems from the necessary difference between
Imperfect Yiqtol and the Preterite Yiqtol -- a point that cannot be made
more strongly. The distinction between these two verb types is seen
primarily in those weak roots which appear shorter in the Preterite than in
the Imperfect (eg, III-Heh roots). The traditional understanding of the
Wayyiqtol as essentially an 'inverted Imperfect' (or a conversive) is
erroneous and unhelpful for exegesis and interpretation. It presents a
treacherous 'shortcut' for young players.

I'm steadily coming to the realisation that the Masoretes at least
misunderstood key verbal Hebrew forms, even if they did not invent new
verbal categories. I think they certainly misunderstood cohortative verbs as
well.


Best regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer in Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page