Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 22/09/2004 16:28, Ken Penner wrote:

> ...
>
> Conj.   Past    Present Future  Total
> -yqtl   3%      10%     88%     100%
> wyqtl   54%     15%     31%     100%
> -qtl    76%     11%     13%     100%
> wqtl    1%      1%      98%     100%
> A. Part.        7%      16%     77%     100%
> P. Part.        44%     7%      49%     100%
> Total   26%     14%     60%     100%
>
> To interpret these tables, what you call "future verbs" with waw (i.e.,
> wyqtl) refer to the past in 54% of cases and to the future in 31% of cases
> in these Dead Sea scrolls. What you call "past verbs" with waw (i.e. wqtl)
> refer to the past in 1% of cases, and to the future in 98% of cases.
>
>  
This is interesting because it seems to me to offer strong confirmation 
of the traditional model for BH, even that it continued to be in use in 
the Qumran period. There is of course nothing "uncancellable" here, but 
if we look at the majorities, we see:

-yqtl = non-past
wyqtl = past or non-past
-qtl  = past (mostly)
wqtl  = non-past

This is the traditional four form model plus the non-past WEYIQTOL. The 
unpointed DSS mostly cannot distinguish WAYYIQTOL from WEYIQTOL 
(although they might in apocopated forms), so the data are consistent 
with unpointed wyqtl being a conflation of WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL forms. 
But they do suggest that in the DSS WAYYIQTOL is much less frequent than 
in BH, but WEYIQTOL is rather more frequent.

The puzzle here is that 24% of -qtl forms are non-past. I don't think 
that happens in BH - although it might do if statives are included. But 
then are the DSS -qtl forms consistently distinguished from infinitives, 
participles and verbal adjectives?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/