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: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:31:50 -0000

Dear Peter,


Of the lamed he group in the Tanakh the WAYYIQTOLs 98 (4.7 %) og the verbs that could
have been apocopated have long forms. For the Hiphil group the number is
133 (15.5 %), and for the hollow group the number is 185 (30.7 %). In the Samaritan Pentateuch 39 (14.7 %) lamed he verbs are not apocopated. The ratio apocopated/nonapocopated forms in the different books of the Tanakh varies much. Apocopation is connected with person and verb root. For example, of 1.p.s. WAYYIQTOLs that could have been apocopated, only 66.9 % are long, of 3.p.pl.m. 75 % are long, but of 3.p.m.s. only 1.3 % are apocopated. These factors suggest that there are pragmatic reasons behind apocopation rather than semantic ones

In the DSS (broken clauses not counted) I have counted 738 YQITOLs with
prefixed WAW. Of the lamed he verbs 33 (4.5 %) are apocopated. There are
also 28 hollow verbs and 8 Hiphils that are defectively written, and these
may or may not be apocopated (there is no consistency in plene and defective
writing). In the Tanakh 3, 919 WAYYIQTOLs (27 %) are apocopated and the same
is true with 102 (8 %) WEYIQTOLs.

Several scholars argue that the reason why many WAYYIQTOLs are apocopated is that the form is a development of an older short preterit. No such old preterit has been proven. The arguments for such a form in old Psalams are completely circular. The meaning of Ugaritic verbs is far from clear, and the more I study Ugaritic, the more I become convinced that there is no distinction between YAQTUL and YAQTULU, but there is just one prefix form. Moreover, Ugaritic has no YAQATTAL form, comparable to IPARRAS (in contrast with IPRUS) in Akkadian and YENAGGER (in contrast with YENGER ) in GeĀ“ez.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


On 09/03/2007 23:11, Rolf Furuli wrote:
Dear Peter,

Every Thursday and Friday I am fully occupied at the University. After
finishing my schedule I rceived your post, and I have to give a comment:
You are wrong, and Karl is right. The WEYIQTOL and the WAYYIQTOL cannot
be distinguished in unpointed texts, since both can be apocopated. If you
do not accept this, please give one single example of where they are
distinct.


Rolf, unfortunately I don't have the Bible study tools to prove this, but
I think you will find that the large majority of WAYYIQTOLs which can be
apocopated are apocopated, whereas the majority of WEYIQTOLS which can be
apocopated, except for those with jussive meaning, are NOT apocopated. But
I accept that there are exceptions to this rule.

If you, or anyone, has any statistics relevant to this, I would be
interested to see them.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page