Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)
  • Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:49:04 +1000


Hi Rolf,

You probably know all the evidence as much, and probably better, than I do. Perhaps you are the one who is right, but I need serious convincing. The thing is, I don't really have a problem with the Hebrew correspondences between long and short prefix verbs in, say, Amarna canaanite. The clustering of meanings associated with the long and short forms is like Hebrew. The thing for me is for evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case. I'm very interested in reading anything you've written where you interact, for example, with Rainey (he has about a ten or so relevant articles etc). We radically differ here, because I don't see the answer receiving resolution in the direction of semantically equating wayyiqtol and (we)yiqtol (in my opinion, I do think you are right concerning (we)qatal). That is, I don't think wayyiqtol and yiqtol are semantically similar at all. The clustering of meanings or prototypical uses are on opposite ends of the spectrum: wayyiqtol is prototypically past perfective; yiqtol is future imperfective. But because we operate from different theoretical positions, exceptions for you will nullify such a conclusion (which has, I assume, prompted your long course of research?) whereas for me they are entirely acceptable (too many exceptions though would call the account into question). To achieve resolution you have had to create a new breed of aspect unique to Hebrew (correct me please if I am wrong in stating this). This MAY be the case, but typologically it is hard to justify, and so I am reluctant to move off from a position which doesn't have to create new categories that cross-linguistically seem to be questioned since Hebrew stands alone. To me we can operate with tense and aspect as normally understood and read and comprehend Hebrew.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I've gotta have some sleep now.

Sincerely,
David Kummerow.

Dear David,
Thank you for your posts where you in detail explains your views.
Regarding your words below I have one question. In my dissertation I
discuss the view that WAYYIQTOL has evolved from an old short preterit
prefix form and that YIQTOL has evolved from a long prefix form. I discuss
Akkadian, Ugaritic, Punic and Phoenician, Aramaic, and the Amarna letters,
and the conclusion is that the short forms in these languages can be used
for past, present, and future, and that there is no evidence for a link
between the short forms in these languages and classical Hebrew. I also
compare the occurrences of YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL in Samuel and Kings versus
Chronicles and other books of the Tanakh, and in the DSS and Ben Sira, and
the conclusion is that there is absolutely no evidence that YIQTOL and
WAYYIQTOL come from different forms. When you say that such a conclusion
"flies in the face of the diachronic evidence" I am curious. Where is this
evidence? What have I missed?

I appreciate if you give a short outline of this evidence, rather than just
referring to the literature. I think I have read most of the literature
discussing this question (including Churchyard), and the only things I have
found are conjectures and presuppositions but no clear evidence. But I am
open for things I have overlooked.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page