Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The perspective of this native speaker of Modern Hebrew of Biblical Hebrew tenses

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The perspective of this native speaker of Modern Hebrew of Biblical Hebrew tenses
  • Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:46:09 +0100

Dear Peter,

Se my comments below.

Peter Kirk wrote:

On 28/11/2004 21:38, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...


Tentative conclusion: in the first person, WEYIQTOL forms are not apocopated, but WAYYIQTOL forms are mostly but not always apocopated. Does your data contradict this?



My data are as follows: Of 543 WEYIQTOLs of 1st p. there are 238 (43.8 %) with cohortative. Of the 69 lamedh he-verbs without suffix, 2 (3 %) are apocopated and 67 are not. Of all 1,217 WEYIQTOLs 85 lamedh he-verbs and 68 other verbs are apocopated. This means that 12.6 percent of all WEYIQTOLs are apocopated while 27 percent of all WAYYIQTOLs are apocopated. Taking the environments where WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs occur into consideration, the differences may be understandable. I analyze 774 WEYIQTOLs as modal and 443 as indicative, while I analyse only 2 percent of the WAYYIQTOLs as modal (I would guess that at least 10 percent of the WAYYIQTOLs are modal, but this is difficult to see, and therefore I have only counted those that I, with a reasonable certainty can say are modal). When I speak of environment, I think of narrative, where the clauses were recited in one way, and modal/future where the recitation probably was different. If apocopation to some degree depends on the rhytm and stress of the clause, I would think of apocopation as more likely in narrative recitation.

The conclusion is that the difference between apocopated WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs that are apocopated is not so great that a semantic difference is suggested. Further, the apocopation of WAYYIQTOLs to a rather great extend depends on the grammatical person of the verb.

Thank you, Rolf. Well, I conclude that apocopation is much less common in 1st person than in other persons:

WEYIQTOL:

1st person: 3/543 = 0.06% (ISA 41:28; 42:6; HOS 11:4)
All persons: 12.6% (your data)
(543/1217 = 45% are 1st person)

WAYYIQTOL:

1st person: 51/708 = 7.2%
All persons: 27% (your data)
(708/15032 = 4.7% are 1st person)

YIQTOL (including WEYIQTOL):

1st person: 13/2803 = 0.046% (DEU 18:16; 1SA 14:36; JOB 23:9,11; ISA 41:23,28; 42:6; EZK 5:16; HOS 9:15; 11:4; ZEP 1:2,3,3)
All persons: 841/11869 = 7.1%
(2803/11869 = 24% are 1st person)

The implication is a strong preference for the longer form in the first person only. But there is also a very strong correlation between apocopation of a first person prefixed form and it being a WAYYIQTOL: 51/64 = 80% of these are WAYYIQTOL although in general only 708/3511 = 20% of first person prefixed forms are WAYYIQTOL.

It is also interesting to see that there proportion of WEYIQTOLs which are 1st person is nearly ten times higher than the proportion of WAYYIQTOLs. That tends to skew the statistics.

It would also be interesting to see how well the apocopation of WEYIQTOLs correlates with a jussive (modal) sense. There is quite a strong correlation, although far from a perfect one, with all YIQTOLs, and I would expect WEYIQTOLs to match.


Of the 155 apocopated WEYIQTOLs I analyze 42 (27.1 %) as indicative, and 113 (72.9) as modal. As for the 217 apocopated YIQTOLs I analyze 12 (5.5 %) as indicative.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
Univesity of Oslo








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page