Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Yitzhak,

I find your questions, objections, and arguments interesting.
See my comments below

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> 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?

RF
I have studied Mishnaic Hebrew and taught it in the classroom, but I have
not systematically analysed all the verbs of a big corpus. If I were to do
that, I would have used exctly the same approach as with classical Hebrew.
There are several difficulties connected with an analysis of MH, not least
all the quotes and allusions to the Tanakh. I used Mishnaic Hebrew as an
example of a grammaticalisation process. On the basis of your question, I
see that it had been better that I had not used to word "tense," since I
build on Segal and others, and have not analysed a big corpus myself.
Nontheless. But the verbs of Mishnaic Hebrew are clear examples of a
grammaticalisation process.

>
>> 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".

RF.
There are many properties of Hebrew verbs where a grammaticalisation process
cannot be seen because of lack of vowels, as you say. In these cases we
cannot assume that a grammaticalisation process has occurred, even though we
see such processes in other languages. For example, we cannot exclude the
possibility that at some point of time the language (verbs, possible case
endings etc) of the older parts of the Tanakh were adjusted to the language
of that time. So we cannot presume grammaticalisation, we must demonstrate
it.

However, there are areas where the mentioned prediction can be tested. 
Kutcher (1974) "The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll" 
claims on p. 42 that Chronicles, which is rather late, reflects the 
development towards the disappearance of WAYYIQTOL in Mishnaic Hebrew. The 
problem is that the statistics of the verbs do not confirm the claim of 
Kutcher, which I show in my dissertation. In  this case, and in others where 
only consonants can be used my prediction can be tested.

 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.

RF
I am open for the possibility that the same verb form could and can be used 
with different senses. In Akkadian, for example, it is the short IPRUS, which 
often refer to the past, that is used in the wish-form precative. And we have 
a similar sitution in Ugaritic. But the point I very often have stressed is 
that in order to use such  multiple functions in a grammatical theory, we 
must demonstrate its existence, not just assume it. That is the reason why I 
refuse to deal with concepts such as Proto-Semitic or Proto-Hebrew, and that 
I challenge those who believe that the antecedent of WAYYIQTOL is an old 
short preterit, to prove it. I agree with you that there are remnants in the 
Hebrew of the Tanakh of stems that earlier were used; there is, for example 
just a single verb in the causative-reflexive stem.

As for Masoretic pointing, I believe it accurately represents the vowels that 
were used at the end of the first millennium B.C.E. (with a few exceptions), 
and I will neither question the pointing, nor the voclization without 
concrete evidence. It seems to me that by and large the Masoretic pointing is 
confirmed by the plene writing of the DSS (save shewa and patah) which were 
not written plene. I am also positive to the accuracy of  the consonantal 
text of the Masoretes. For example, the great Isaiah scroll   (1QIsaa) is 
very close to the Masoretic Isaiah, and even though there are greater 
variations in some DSS, I think a good case can be made for the existence of 
a consonant text close to the Masoretic text around the beginning ofthe first 
millennium BCE. So, as far as the conjugations (prefix forms and suffix 
forms) are concerned, the means at our disposition make it possible to 
demonstrate a grammaticalisation process if such a process had occurred.


There are several fine points in your words above
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo