Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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
> >