Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:27:12 -0000

Dear David,

I have a few comments to this post since you menton my views.

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


Gday Bob,

I would argue that the Masoretes are recording exactly what they heard,
ie a-vowel + gemination of the first root consonant. Rolf will argue
differently based upon his assumptions.

RF
Here you have misunderstood me, since I have the same view as you. All the data of which I am aware show that the Masoretes were extremely careful not to add anything to or subtract anything from the text. For example, they did not know the triradical nature of Hebrew roots, yet they treated the text as if they did. I for one argue that the Masoretic text, including the vowels and points, is trustworthy. However, I argue in my dissertation that some of the differences we see in the Masoretic text ( e.g., the difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL) are pragmatic and not semantic (i.e., the Masoretes did not intend to show that WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL were two different conjugations). When Hebrew grammar arose after the Masoretes, the first grammarians interpreted the pragmatic differences as semantic differences, and a model of the verbal system with four conjugations were born. Thefour conjugations are clearly seen in the works of D. Kimxi.

DK
But it depends, also, on what you mean by "original". Original at the
time of the Masoretes, original to 1000-400BC, or original to
proto-Hebrew? Some (eg Andersen 2000: 20, 51; Müller 1991; Revell 1984:
443) explain the gemination as having arisen so as to preserve the vowel
quality in order to be distinct from a reduced /we/. Others argue that
the a-vowel and gemination are the remnants of a clitic; see McFall
1982: 217-219 and Hatav 2004 for proposals.

RF
What in the world is "Proto-Hebrew? In my view it complicates the issue that such theoretical concepts, which no one *knows* anything about, are introduced. The scholars you quote are experienced researchers, but their differing views regarding gemination are nothing but educated guesses. My suggestion is this: We have a text (the Masoretic text and the DSS), so let us stick to this text and avoid speculative approaches . What does the text that we have tell us regarding the WAY(Y)-element of the WAYYIQTOLs? This element is non-existent before the Masoretes! Since the DSS do not mark gemination, and plene writing almost never is used with PATAH, there is no difference between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL in the DSS. In his Hexapla Origen transcribes Hebrew words, but we do not find any difference between WEYIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL in his transcriptions. Does this mean that the Masoretes invented the WAYYIQTOL form? The answer can be both Yes and No, depending on what is meant by "invention". The fact that the first vowel is lengthened in 1 p. s. WAYYIQTOLs indicates that theMasoretes viewed the initial WAW as causing gemination/lengthening. This need not be semantic, but could simply be caused by the stress difference in the resitation in the synagogue (i.e., narratives were chanted in one way, future action and modality in another way). There could also be other pragmatic reasons, such as in the case with the relative partice $, which also causes gemination. So, the Masoretes invented the WAYYIQTOL form because they invented the use of the particular vowels. But they did not invent anything new semantically speaking, such as a new conjugation. That was done by later grammarians who misunderstood their work.

Please note that my point is not that gemination was nonexistent before the Masoretes. but rather that we do not know whether prefix-forms with a prefixed WAW were viewed as geminated or not before the Masoretes. In my view the case with the WAY(Y)- is very simple: It is nothing but a conjunction, and in all cases where a WAYYIQTOL is used, it can be translated by "and (or another conjunction) + verb". It is the "and" that carries the narrative forwards and not the verb form; any form, finite or infinite, with prefixed "and" will function in a similar way.

Andersen, T. David. 2000. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.”
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13: 1-66.
Hatav, Galia. 2004. “Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew.”
Journal of Linguistics 40: 491-526.
McFall, Leslie. 1982. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions
from Ewald to the Present Day. Historic Texts and Interpreters in
Biblical Scholarship 2. Sheffield: Almond.
Müller, Hans-Peter. 1991. “wa-, ha- und das Imperfectum consecutivum.”
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4: 144-160.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Thanks for all the contributions on this subject. In spite of the rather
confusing terminology - all those kill and be killed verbs - it has been
informative of linguistic issues and the disagreements.

I found a useful paper at
http://www.basicsofbiblicalhebrew.com/images/wayyiqtol1.pdf

I find it curious, that the form of the waw conversive, or not, is
contained
in the vowel markings and a dagesh forte.

Does the dagesh occur in the original or is it also a Masoretic
invention?

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page