Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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