Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Hi David,
Some of the objections below I answered elsewhere on this list.
See also below your quotes.

2005/11/28, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:

> This is the basic problem as I see it with the theory, aside from what
> Joel has also added. Wayyiqtol verbs tend to receive apocopation, while
> yiqtol verbs do not. Apocopation, however, is no longer necessary to
> determine the form due to the fossilisation of the clitic between the
> conjunction and the verb. But the trend for apocopation in wayyiqtol
> verbs needs to be explained, and I think the view that we have two
> different prefix verbs makes the most sense. And if that is the case,
> then the preterite does not need any "anchoring" as it anchors itself.

I do agree we have, diachronically, a few different yiqtol tenses.
However, after the short end vowels *yaqtulA, *yaqtulU fell off, only
the apocopated form is still there next to the long form. I guess
there could just be a preference for the shortest form at the back
(language is economical) as the gemination already lengthens the form
at the front. If we would be dealing with some kind of principle that
wayyiqtol always has the apocopated form, I wouldn't disregard it so
easily, but wayyiqtol doesn't always have the short yiqtol.
Apparently, while the distinction between the jussive form and the
long yiqtol form disappeared, C1 gemination in wayyiqtol was still
very relevant.

> By the way, have you read this monograph:
>
> Testen, David D. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics: The Development of
> Arabic la- and Related Semitic Particles. Studies in Semitic Languages
> and Linguistics 26. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
>
> If you go for Galia's proposal, you'll probably find this interesting
> reading.

I'm being sent one monograph after the other nowadays ;) thanks. I'm
interested in Arabic.

> The point I wished to make was that it is extremely difficult to date
> things linguistically in the OT due to its lack of dialectical
> uniformativity. Add to this the fact that people can write "archaically"
> and the scribal tendency to update language before the text was
> "standardised" and we have a problem. I am not claiming that any or all
> of the books Gen-2 Kings are either early OR late, only that one cannot
> assume that all linguistic features in those books represent an early
> Hebrew as apposed to other Hebrew in the OT.

There I can only say that you are right.
However, if people write archaically, as long as they copy their
examples well, the results we get from using that material won't be
spoiled.
We have to be wary of archaisms only in syntax, I think: usually,
words and spelling can be "archaised" without errors, but syntax can
never be "copied" without errors.
It's an interesting problem. Are there some notorious passages in the
mentioned corpus where people say it is archaic artificially? I admit
I never really studied this.
Regards
Herman