Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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