Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/8/07, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Then back to grammaticalisation, which means that the uses of one part
> of speach become fewer and fewer, until it has a single use. Examples
> are the use of QATAL as past tense and YIQTOL as a future tense in Mishnaic
> Hebrew.

How do you know that Mishnaic Hebrew has tenses?  I mean, do you analyze
Mishnaic Hebrew in the same way you analyze Biblical Hebrew?

> Regarding WAYYIQTOL we can make this prediction: If WAYYIQTOL
> were in the process of grammaticalisation from the first book was written
> until a certain time or until the last book was written, we expect to find the
> pattern that WAYYIQTOL has fewer and fewer functions/meanings until it
> has only a few, or even one funtion/meaning.

Problematic here is the fact that we have no consistent reproduction of
vowels in the Bible until the Hexapla for some texts, and until the Massoretic
works in the late 1st millenium for others.  We do, however, have some
evidence from Amarna and Ugaritic inscriptions which can be used to
understand the vowel and perhaps gemination patterns.  It is not possible,
then, to distinguish VATTISPOR/VATISPOR (as well as possibly additional,
now lost) distinctions from before this  time in Biblical texts.  This
is especially
underscored by the examples where verbs are perhaps repointed, and which
you yourself recognize are sometimes dependent on Massoretic considerations
as far as pointings and the consonantal text.  Stress is not possible
to distinguish
prior to the Massoretic editions of these texts.  Since this time (the 
Hexapla)
is after "the last book was written", one is prevented from making diachronic
conclusions such as "fewer and fewer functions".  In seeing a word used
before this time (such as in the DSS, Hebrew, Moabite, Ugaritic and other
NWS inscriptions), one must take into consideration that a particular "word"
(such as a conjugated verb) spelled the same way but used with variant
meanings may represent in fact two words which have different vowels,
stress, and gemination patterns, but which cannot be distinguished in the
consonantal script each with its own unique but different meaning.  While
distinctions between {VATTISPOR/VATISPOR} and SOFARTO and
VASOFARTO are possible to distinguish in the consonantal script, the
consonantal script itself should be controlled and tested for differences in
the spelling of these verbs over time as much as possible, by comparing
with the DSS and other ancient versions.  After doing so, one should still be
open to the possibility that these Massoretic vocalizations no longer preserve
vowel, gemination, and stress patterns that distinguished those words earlier
on.  In fact, we indeed know that there were several paradigms for Qal such
as qatil vs. qatal.  These complexities of how the text was preserved make it
very hard if not impossible to test a prediction as you have stated above,
unless of course you come with an assumption that such vocalization 
distinctions
as VATTISPOR/VATISPOR did not exist prior to the Massoretes (as opposed
to the possibility that they existed in the language but were just not noted 
in
the script).  If so, this assumption will in turn influence your results.

Yitzhak Sapir