Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The mystery of vav-consequtive
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:06:32 +0100

On 29/04/2005 11:08, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...
There are five graphically different groups of verbs in the MT: YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, QATAL, AND QATAL. The Grammar tells us that there are four different groups semantically speaking: YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL. ...


I'm not sure where you get this The Grammar from, but I have never learned that there are four groups, rather the five or perhaps six (two different YIQTOLs, a long and a short form) which are distinguished in the orthography. In fact seven if we include the imperative. And if there is any one standard The Grammar, surely the book in which to find it described is Gesenius. Does Gesenius say that there are four different groups? No, he lists seven "tenses and moods" of the verb: perfect, imperfect, cohortative, jussive, imperative, imperfect with waw consecutive, perfect with waw consecutive. That is, he separates jussive and cohortative, but does not list WEYIQTOL as a distinct form. I accept that the last of these is probably a deficiency in Gesenius' analysis, but not a fatal one considering the rarity of WEYIQTOL.

...
As long as you start a study of the Hebrew verbal system *assuming* that there are four conjugations, you let The Grammar have priority, and you are very far from being a scientific revolutionary in the Kuhnian sense. ...


I make no such assumption. Nor do most students today.

I see one way to proceed to refrain from giving The Grammar priority:

1. Start your study with the assumption that classical Hebrew has at least two different conjugations (a prefix-conjugation and a suffix-conjugation, which can be seen in the DSS), possibly three or four. (This approach alone frees you from the straitjacket of The Grammar.)


No, we must start with the assumption that there are seven or eight, because this is the number which are graphically distinguished. At least, that is what we must do if we are analysing Tiberian Masoretic Hebrew. I accept that some of the distinctions are not entirely clear in unpointed texts, but I have argued elsewhere that they cannot be Masoretic inventions but must reflect distinctions made in the Hebrew of the early Second Temple period - and already obsolescent by the DSS period.


2. Study *all* the finite and infinite verbs of the Hebrew corpus (MT, DSS, Ben Sira, and the Inscriptions) on the basis of the relationship between event time, reference time, and the deictic center, and see how many different groups og finite verbs that emerge. (This does not necessarily make you a revolutionary, but it shows you are a good scientist.)

3. Study the material in order to find the *meaning* of the different verb forms, and not just their *functions*. (To ascribe just one or two functions to YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, AND WEQATAL is completely impossible. Function can be a fine tool for teaching students the language, but cannot account for the Hebrew verbal system.)

In principle this is a good approach. But it needs to be adopted with some care. For one thing, there is a need to avoid presupposing e.g. that WAYYIQTOL is semantically equivalent to WE- + YIQTOL. For another, the language must not be forced into the straitjacket of a theoretical model of semantics. Thus, for example, realism is required on the issue of uncancellability, because in the real world words are sometimes used in ways which appear to conflict with their semantic meaning. (See my discussion with Michael Millier - poetry does not always stand up to detailed analysis.) But we have been through this one before.

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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 27/04/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page