Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Hi David,
Thanks, I'm interested in anything related to this subject.
Of course you are right about the fact I was exaggerating in my
expectation about Hatav's theory. Just me ;)  However, as I have been
thinking this way for five years now, I was so surprised to see that
Galia Hatav now comes up with the same theory simultaneously, that I'm
really convinced of it.

One very important thing to note about this theory:
It is NOT the "definite article" which is "inside" of wayyiqtol!

One the contrary, *both* wayyiqtol and [ha-+dagesh] have the same
gemination in common, which "anchors" nouns and verbs "to the world".
I say this because many people laugh at the theory saying, "yeah
right, how on earth can there be a definite article in a Hebrew yiqtol
verb?"
Well, that's of course an incorrect rendering of the theory.

Why do I believe in this theory?
First, it meets a very important criterium in science:
"The simpler, more elegant, and more surprising theory, that can
account for *more* phenomena with *less* hypotheses, or only one
hypothesis, is to be preferred."
I don't know who said this but I'm quoting what I remember some
British guy has written.
Anyway, don't you think the Hatav theory explains both article and
wayyiqtol with only one hypothesis?

I'll paste my own article here (you can find it below) where you can
find sound proof for at least the fact that the Hebrew article is most
probably only the gemination. I see no reason why primarily gemination
would not be the case in wayyiqtol.
By the way, that article was never published because a while after I
wrote it (it's not even finished) I read Hatav's piece, making my own
superfluous.

What you say about the one yiqtol not being the other yiqtol is important.
We may disagree with Hatav on her assertion that synchronically,
there's only one yiqtol.
Of course, we have this diachronically supposed "preterite yiqtol".
However, if I'm correct and I might not, the diachronically supposed
proto-Canaanite past tense yiqtol (with yussive shortness if I'm
correct) is supposed *on the basis of* the very same Hebrew wayyiqtol,
and Arabic lam yaqtul, both of which can be explained by Hatav's
theory, if applied to Arabic, too: simply dissimilation of a geminated
prefix consonant. Although I immediately admit, that is of course
rather speculative. But on the other hand we have to be wary of
circular reasoning when we suppose a preterite yiqtol next to others.

In fact, imagine we do take the preterite yiqtol's existence for
granted, wayyiqtol does not even uniformly have mil'el
stress/apocopated forms, so what can we say about it? Are then both
"preterite" and "modal" yiqtols possible in wayyiqtol? In that case, I
think, synchronically speaking, the "several types of
yiqtol"-distinction has apparently become so blurred that there really
was only one yiqtol.

The thing you said about the first temple period and bible book
dating, admitting it is important for syntax in some cases, I wonder
if that is really so crucial here. I things such as the "priestly
code", like Gen 1-2,3(4?) are to be dated after or in the Galut Bavel,
which is fine with me although I'm not really a theologian, it can
hardly be dated much later. There will always be people who date this
book early and that book late. For example, I am absolutely convinced
that the book Ruth is very old, first temple period, probably written
for one of the Davidic kings, in order to get rid of the annoying
"buzz" among the people that one of David's ancestors was a Moabite. I
can't find any more sound reason for that book having been written
than that. The Hebrew's old too. However, there are many people who'd
say that's nonsense, the book was written half a millennium or more
later, it's a little social novel about an immigrant worker and her
lot and so on. I had this discussion about that with Atalya Brenner,
the feminist, but no way of coming near each other's point of view.
Now my point. Having said the above, how can we come up with any
theory about Hebrew syntax at all, if we cannot decide for ourselves a
body of texts to study a certain phenomenon in, just because others
may say the dating of these books is controversial? Anything
concerning the Hebrew Bible is controversial.
The grammar of Joüon-Muraoka has quite a few errors or very doubtful
suppositions too, yet it is very frequently quoted and often as
"proof". The most crucial error being that poetry examples are being
quoted to back up syntactical hypotheses for prose, which is
inacceptable. The book's still for sale though.

Sorry for all that, just thought you were a little too strict on
Hatav's article ;)

What I would like you, well anyone I guess, to ask is: present us a
better, simpler, more elegant theory than this, or better even, why
don't you try to look at the BHebrew texts supposing the theory (as if
you actually believe it yourself), only to give it up when you really
find something that contradicts it.
That would be an interesting experiment of thought.
My opinion of science is, it has to provide the best and simplest
hypotheses to explain certain phenomena, for the time being, until an
even better one is given, so after testing that hypothesis, we may or
may not accept it.
There may never be actual *proof* for any theory concerning wayyiqtol.
However, *ALL other theories* I have seen so far are either unlikely,
need too many additional hypotheses, or are too far-fetched to be
taken seriously.

Theories don't always have to be proved, the proof is in that they
*work*. This works!

Thanks for reading all this.
Must be tiresome ;)
Btw I really appreciate reactions like yours to this "gemination
first"-theory. Most people don't take it seriously in the first place,
so thank you for that.

Best regards,
Herman Meester


2005/11/26, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:
>
> Hi Herman,
>
> Note, though, that Hatav's article contains errors and other doubtful
> assertions (again, in my opinion, as in all things different people will
> take different theoretical stances). Eg:
>
> 1. Pg 493,n.6 she builds her case on a corpus of Gen-2 Kings (which is
> fine, we all must impose limits on our study), but then attributes this
> to "the First Temple period" so that she might assume her synchronic
> study. This is doubtful in the light of recent research, particuarly the
> JSOTSS book edited by Ian Young.
>
> 2. Page 494, section 2, par 1 (also repeated on pg 497). Her assertion
> that the yiqtol in wayyiqtol is the same, synchronically, as yiqtol -
> even if diachronically unrelated - is simply not true. This, I think, is
> her biggest error, and leads her on to propose what she does about the
> clitic -ay- in that it is the verbal complement of the definite article
> (Testen also argues for this in his monograph (but differently) which is
> surprisingly unreferenced by Hatav). All this is built on the
> presumption that the yiqtol in wayyiqtol corresponds to yiqtol and thus
> needs the marker of definiteness to allow it to function in predications
> which are past perfective etc. Such a view which flies in the face of
> the diachronic evidence needs to be carefully explained diachronically
> (and, even more helpfully, typologically) in that a) how the two
> diachronically divergent forms came to be related in the one they have;
> and b) how the divergent diachronic semantics came to be resolved in the
> preference for (long) yiqtol (a question related to a). These are
> questions unanswered by Hatav, but in my view need to be for the view to
> become "the default way of looking at BHebrew grammar" as you predict.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
> > Dear list members,
> > ! שלום לכם
> > I don't know if I said there are no tenses in Hebrew;
> > I do largely agree with Galia Hatav (Journal of Linguistics, november
> > 2004).
> > For example, C1 gemination in noun and verb anchor the noun or verb to
> > "this world" => definite noun or simple past verb (point in time) (I
> > guess you can call wayyiqtol a tense, then); whereas yiqtol or non-C1
> > geminated noun are yet "undefined". Galia and I came up with that
> > theory independently; therefore it must be true. All credits to her of
> > course, she really worked it out. Her article is very strongly
> > recommended.
> > That's all the fresh stuff I can offer.
> > Fifty years from now, it'll be the default way of looking at BHebrew
> > grammar. :)
> > I think it makes a lot of sense.
> > best regards,
> > Herman
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>

***
The origin of the prefix gemination of ויּקטל in biblical Hebrew
(Herman Meester, oct. 2005)

This article intends to propose a fresh understanding of why, in the
verbal tense ויּקטל wayyiqtol, the prefix consonant is geminated, and
why the form is always preceded by the particle ו.

Syntactically, the function of the biblical Hebrew verb pattern ויּקטל
wayyiqtol has been adequately described, for prose that is, as
representing a simple past, non-durative, describing an action in a
point in time. Translation of ויּקטל forms not giving too many
difficulties, the question of its origin, that is the question of
where the ו part and, especially, the יּ part come from, has not been
hotly debated for a time. The question may be actually deemed by many
to be never resolved, obscure as is it, no ancient Hebrew around to
ask.

The origin of the יּ part, the prefix gemination, or the lengthening of
the short vowel ַ after ו to ָ  in case the prefix begins with א, is
usually considered to be brought about by the ו part, or some element
between ו and the prefix, א ת י or נ, that has been assimilated, the
original shape of which has not been found. It has been argued that
the prefix gemination is caused by the "emphatic", "conversive", or
"consecutive" version of the word ו which, unlike its non-emphatic,
non-conversive or non-consecutive counterpart ו, strengthens the
following consonant to the effect that it is geminated.

This hypothesis of the element ו "strengthening" the following
consonant, seems to remove the need to launch all sorts of
speculations about various possible particles that may have
assimilated to the prefix. However, the notion of an emphatic ו is in
itself speculative too. The problem that remains when we try to
explain both wayyiqtol out of *wa-yaqtul as well as wɔyiqtol out of
*wa-yaqtul(u), is that we have to postulate the existence of two word
ו, that look the same but function quite differently, and only in this
particular case. This notion may be strengthened comparing it to the
Arabic word ف or to the Hebrew form וקטלתי wɔqātaltí with future
meaning, however the first comparison is with another language,  that
actually has both a word و wa and ف fa, not supporting the idea of two
identically looking, but syntactically differing Hebrew words ו, and
the second comparison is problematic in that the וקטלתי form
representing a future meaning may well be explained, as for its
origin, in ways other than by the aid of a hypothetical emphatic word
ו. In fact, if both wayyiqtol and wɔyiqtol are supposed to contain the
conjunction wa, we would expect either gemination in both cases, or in
neither case, unless we propose a few additional hypotheses, which
amounts to conjecture.

My position is that the geminated prefix consonant in ויּקטל is not
caused by the ו part at all. We may resolve the matter if we explain
the gemination as a gemination within the Hebrew morphological system.
Consonant gemination in the biblical phase of Hebrew has a number of
functions, provided it is not caused by clear assimilation. Often,
gemination simply belongs to a certain pattern, such as the קטּל qittel
binyan, where the doubled second consonant means that the object of a
קטּל verb is an abundant plural, or that the action described is
performed intensively. In the case of  ויּקטל, too, I will demonstrate
that gemination is the primary event. For the sake of the argument, we
will first have to take a look at C1 gemination in the Hebrew noun (C1
in this article meaning the first consonant of a word, not of a root).

Definite nouns
Hebrew can give nouns, basically, three states: indefinite, construct
and definite. The shaping of a definite noun involves the use of
primary (i.e. not caused by assimilation) gemination: the first
consonant of the noun (or adjective) is doubled, and this in itself
renders a definite noun. This is, of course, by no means a new idea.

*qudš > *qqudš

Morphological laws forbidding words to begin with two consonants,
then, require the definite noun to be preceded by an auxiliary vowel,
which in turn cannot begin a word, meaning an auxiliary consonant must
be added too; if not for the sake of phonology, then at least for
writing. Cf. the Arabic alif al-waşl, preceding the article, but not
representing the glottal stop: in a similar way, the ה of the Hebrew
may be nothing more than a non-consonant, a vowel-preceding mater
lectionis.

*qqudš > *aqqudš > *( )aqqudš > haqqódeš הקּדש

This gives the impression that an entirely new word, a "definite
article" ●ה is created, a word that, in biblical Hebrew at least, does
not exist. This explanation of noun definition is beyond doubt, for
the following reasons:

If a noun in the definite state is preceded by the prepositions כ ב or
ל, the noun's geminated C1, preceded by its auxiliary vowel, does not
need an auxiliary consonant other than כ ב or ל already there. No
cases of, for example *להקּדש have been found in old phases of Hebrew,
because no word ה existed.
Phoenician attestations of definite nouns such as אבבנם "the sons" or
עממקם "the place" show that the auxiliary consonant is not very
relevant (and its spelling undecided) and that gemination is the only
element that produces definition.
In Arabic, too, the definite article ال (a)l is a secondary
development out of C1 gemination of a noun. It could be argued that in
Arabic, an original definite article ال (visible in writing)
assimilates to many consonants, but in fact dissimilation of the
gemination consonant (a)CC1 to (a)l-C1 is the case in a certain group
of consonants. This can be proved when we compare verbal stem VIII
verbs of a root with C1=ل (l) to definite nouns with C1=ت (t):

التقى (i)ltaqā (stem VIII, √لقي ); lt in (i)ltaqā are not assimilated to *tt;
التركة (a)ttarika (√ترك); tt in (a)ttarika is not assimilated out of
*lt; tt is, on the contrary, an original geminate, producing the
definite noun.

If there was a phonetic rule ltV > ttV in Arabic (for consonants in
initial position), one of the above examples would be impossible.
Furthermore, in Egyptian Arabic, the geminated C1 remains
unassimilated to more consonants than is the case in Standard Arabic,
which may well point to a conserved older practice.

Verbs
We have seen that biblical Hebrew uses C1 gemination in nouns to put
them in the definite state. In verbs in the imperfect tense יקטל (the
short, jussive/preterite version *yaqtul), C1 gemination (in the case
of יקטל, the prefix) produces a separate verbal tense יּקטל which then
begins with CC, needing a preceding auxiliary vowel, needing an
auxiliary consonant.

*yaqtul > *yyaqtul > *( )ayyaqtul > wayyiqtol ויּקטל

The auxiliary consonant, ה in the case of definite nouns, is ו in the
case of prefix-geminated verbs, meaning that the word ו "and" has made
an alliance with the newly formed tense יּקטל; the primary development,
however, was autonomous gemination. Biblical Hebrew is a VSO language,
so as verbs usually come first in main clauses, it is not surprising
that the particle ו has given its consonant to the יּקטל form when it
needed it.

If two phenomena can be explained with one hypothesis, this single
hypothesis is to be preferred to two hypotheses, each giving their own
unrelated explanation for one phenomenon. I have argued above that the
definite noun, for example הקּדש, and the geminated prefix tense ויּקטל
share:

primary, autonomous C1 gemination,
producing a word beginning CC1, needing an auxiliary vowel preceding
it, needing an auxiliary consonant to precede that vowel;
resulting, respectively, in the definite noun, or in a new tense
within the verbal system which is "definite" too, in the sense that it
embodies an action well-defined in a point in time, commonly
understood as the past.

In BH prose, a defined noun, such as הקּדש, differs from an undefined
noun, קדש, in the sense that when we hear הקּדש we know which, or what
type of, "קדש" is meant; within the entire sphere of possible ideas of
קדש, the defined הקּדש limits the scope, so that the only "קדש" we can
see is the one intended by the speaker. In a very similar way, an
"undefined" imperfect verbal form יקטל can express all sorts of
future, modal or durative sense: "if only he..., they will..., let
us..., I could...", whereas the geminated-prefix tense defines the
action described in it to a point in time in the past.

One of the advantages of this theory is that we no longer have to
wonder why the "consecutive" form wayyiqtol, that is commonly taken to
express a continuation of an action in the clause the wayyiqtol is
dependent on, in so many cases does not seem to express any
consecution, beginning entire chapters or books, and why even poetry
(which of course has a syntax, totally different from that of prose)
uses the form, which was always thought to be typical of the
narrative, in ways that are not like narratives at all. If the origin
of the wayyiqtol tense lies in the ו part, the original function must
have had something to do with consecution. However, if the origin of
the tense is in the gemination, ו and its vowel having been added as
an auxiliary vowel and consonant, the syntactic origin is merely a
simple past. Apparently, the particle ו was accepted to begin clauses
in the VSO language biblical Hebrew was. We may be tempted to
translate this article with "and" all the time, but BH syntax having
given such a complex role to ו to play, descriptive syntax, not
translation-based syntax, is what is needed.

Wayyiqtol is a prefix-geminated tense, in which C1 (prefix) gemination
(or compensatory lengthening of (w)a to (w)â if the prefix consonant
is א) is the autonomous, primary event producing the tense within the
verbal system. Wa- is the auxiliary vowel and consonant attached to it
in order to resolve C1C1, in the very same way definite nouns are
established. C1 gemination in both the definite noun and in wayyiqtol
express the fixation of the thing or action expressed in noun or verb
in these states, to a clearly discernable identity within time or
space.
***