Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Dear Rolf,

Reading your reply I came to the conclusion that our ways of looking
at Hebrew syntax are miles apart. It will be very difficult to
reconcile our two views, for a number of reasons.
First, I see you mention examples found in the book Job.
It is my strong conviction that BHebrew prose and BHebrew poetry
differ completely in syntax. Canaanite poetry has actually its own
separate, "parallel" language, and poets are messy with yiqtol,
wayyiqtol, qatal etc. on purpose, to be able to reach audiences
speaking various dialects.
The same phenomenon is to be observed in Marocco in the Rif mountains.
There too, poets make syntax messy on purpose, and their language is
not one local dialect but uses various elements from all the dialects
they've heard, to give all hearers something to make them feel "at
home" in the (recited) poem.

If your work is based partly on poetry, we cannot discuss any further
I'm afraid. The syntax of prose needs its own description and so does
most of poetry.

Secondly, I think it is impossible for the masoretes to have invented
the We-yqtl /wayyqtl distinction. It amounts to so much innovation,
whereas they rather intended to preserve. I cannot imagine that in
their discussions they agreed to invent something huge like that. If
ever anyone came up with the idea, they would have thrown him out of
the academy.
If you look at the accent signs, the margins, the countings at the end
of a book, and so on, it's all about preserving what they remembered.

I think by the way we should not underestimate the ability of the
human memory to memorise the entire Tanakh syllable by syllable. There
are thousands of non-Arabic speakers who memorise the entire Qur'an,
hardly understanding the meaning of a word, whereas the Jewish
"memorisers" are expected to know what they were learning, simply
because they used Hebrew for other purposes too.
In the mind of such a haafiz (someone who memorises the Qur'an) a lot
may come up, but not the idea of changing a little sound here and
there for clarification. I see no reason why the masoretes would be so
different in their treatment of a holy text.
To my knowledge, there are no references in say the Talmudim to
masoretes innovating their text in its phonology or spelling. That
doesn't mean anything, I haven't read it all, but have you found any
such reference? If it happened, people would have been discussing it
and it is very unlikely it would not have ended up in some anecdote in
rabbinic literature.

You are right I cannot prove the theory I'm defending here. The only
proof is its simplicity: C1-gemination explaining 3 phenomena at a
time! (the Arabic and Hebrew "definite article", and wayyqtl, each
"anchoring" their noun to "this world"). I think that is as good as
proof. In the further analysis of (way-/we-)yiqtol I refer to Hatav
2004, in order not to have to write it all down here ;)

Hoping to convince you some day,

Best regards,
Herman



2005/11/26, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>