Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Herman,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)


Dear Rolf,

Thanks for "taking up the glove";)
I have a feeling we disagree, but we're also talking on slightly
different wavelengths, in the sense that I was also looking for a
sound explanation for the gemination in wayyiqtol, whereas I have a
feeling you consider this detail of minor importance.

You state:
"The WE- and WAY- of the so-called consecutive forms are the
conjunction WAW, and the gemination and patah of the WAY- prefix are
caused by phonetic rules and the stress position."

I was looking for those phonetic rules, or rather, I think that the
gemination comes first.
Although I can't take any offence at your words below, and it is your
prerogative to consider the gemination of minor importance (most
people do, I guess), I like Hatav's theory because it *does* explain
the "phonetic rules" you refer to (I do wonder why, in your theory,
wayyiqtol exists next to weyiqtol if they have both the same semantic
meaning; without primary gemination they cannot have the same "waw",
or they cannot be the same yiqtol; however I fear this remark might
call for a huge discussion which will be endless).

RF
I do not view gemination as of minor importance, and the fact that 
WAYYIQTOLs of 1. p. sing. use to have qamets, because the aleph cannot be 
geminated, suggests that the gemination came first. However, other particles 
causes gemination as well, the relative conjunction $ (32 examples, e.g., 
Ecc 1.4; 8:7; Song 2:17), the iterrrogative pronoun MH (26 examples, e.g., 
Judg 8:3; 2 Sa 7:20), and the article H (107 examples when H is prefixed to 
participles and one example when it is prefixed to a QATAL (e.g., Gen 2:11, 
13; Is 56:3). I see no semantic reason for the mentioned geminations, and an 
extra element between the particle and the word is hardly possible.

Is is impossible to distinguish between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL before the 
Masoretes. My view is that the Masoretes introduced the difference between 
the two forms on pragmatic grounds and later grammarians before Kimxi 
interpreted this in a Semantic way. If you study the WEYIQTOLs, you will see 
that the Masoretes often "erred" in their poiting, i.e. they pointed the 
verb as WEYIQTOL when it has the same function as most WAYYIQTOLs. The 
problems the Masoretes faced when they should decide whether to point as WE- 
or WAYY- can be illustrated with the five WAYYIQTOLs, 3 WEYIQTOLs, and 15 
YIQTOLs in Job 34:4-16. What are the differences between these verb forms? 
Another problem is that the default pronunciation of shewa in the days of 
the Masoretes was an "a"-sound, probably similar to patah.


I can understand that going all over the entire verbal syntax of
BHebrew may be a little too much if you've "been there before".
However, could I ask you what, in your opinion, makes the theory
described in my article (attached to one of the mails in this thread)
implausible?

In L. McFall (1982) "The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System" pp. 217-219) we 
find a description of fifteen different theories that have been proposed to 
explain the WAY- element. The problem is that there is no hard evidence in 
favor of any of them. Your theory is not implausible, but there is no 
evidence for it either. And your theory is not necessary provided that 
WAYYIQTOL has the same semantic meaning as YIQTOL. As far as I know, it is 
unprecedented in any language that a conjunction alone, or in combination 
with another element prefixed to a verb form causes or signals that this 
verb form has the very opposite meaning of the same form without the prefix. 
Nobody has been able to demonstrate how and why such a strange thing should 
happen.

(I consider the theory to be like foreign food: it looks weird, it
smells weird, but just try it and you may love it! ;) )
This applies to anyone: give me a good reason why the theory I support
is *not* plausible or even impossible! Thank you all in advance.
You will be rewarded! (with a fresh look at wayyiqtol and the definite
article ;) )

best regards,
Herman
Rotterdam


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo