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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:46:19 +1100

Hi Rolf,

I'm sorry that I misrepresented you.

But I am confused. You say initially that "I for one argue that the Masoretic text, including the vowels and points, is trustworthy." But then you say: "This element [ie way(y] is non-existent before the Masoretes!" And also: "So, the Masoretes invented the WAYYIQTOL form because they invented the use of the particular ] vowels."

I rather see it that the Masoretes invented the system of vowel notation to record what they heard. Thus the wayyiqtol form is not invented by them, but they simply represent it as they heard it. Now the exact pronunciation of this form may have changed over time (cf the different views I cited originally), but at least for them they preserve the verbal form as they had it at the time. The difference between wayyiqtol and yiqtol is a difference that is formal: originally a difference of yaqtul and yaqtulu, the remnants of which is retained in some forms, the distribution of paragogic nun, and the third-person pronominal suffixes augmented with nun. But for me, the difference is also semantic: wayyiqtol is used as the narrative past tense, while yiqtol, at least in direct speech, functions as a future tense. The formal differences thus reflect two verbal paradigms differing semantically.

Rolf, I agree with you regarding the conjunction, that it is it which carries the narrative forward. Some languages grammaticalise separate conjunctions: "and" and "and then". Hebrew has the one, which would also seem to cover English "but", "now", and perhaps "or" and "although". Malchukov is good reading on this (see reference below). But a complicating factor is that languages which tend to start repeatedly forming their narratives with verb-initial constructions start to come to regard verb-initial clauses themselves carrying the consecutive meaning (I can supply some references if you want and if you give me a day).

Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. “Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative Contrast Marking.” Journal of Semantics 21: 177-198.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

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