Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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