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: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:02:32 +0000

On 10/03/2007 08:31, Rolf Furuli wrote:
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

I don't agree with your conclusion. First, let's concentrate on the lamed-he verbs, as the hiphil and hollow verbs are affected by the rule "there is no consistency in plene and defective writing" which applies to the Tanakh as well as DSS. And then I would want to limit the discussion to third person verbs, because it is well known that in the first person there is a tendency even in jussive (cohortative) forms to add an extra he, and this extra he cannot be distinguished (certainly in consonantal writing) from the final he of a non-apocopated form. Also, surely we need to look at 3rd person singular, because in the plural of lamed he verbs there is no possibility of apocopation.

So we are left with your statistic that of 3rd person singular WAYYIQTOL forms of lamed-he verbs, only 1.3% are not apocopated. This in itself is enough to distinguish WAYYIQTOL from the simple conjunction plus non-jussive YIQTOL, in the consonantal text, for it is well known that non-jussive YIQTOL is rarely apocopated.

Do you have a directly corresponding statistic for WEYIQTOL forms? I accept that there are a number of apocopated WEYIQTOLs which have jussive force, for example WIYHIY which is quite common as a jussive "and let there be" e.g. in Genesis 1:6. But what proportion of non-jussive WEYIQTOLs of lamed-he verbs, 3rd person singular, are apocopated? I suspect that it will be much less than the 98.7% for WAYYIQTOLs, a significant difference in the consonantal text which implies a pre-Masoretic distinction between narrative WAYYIQTOL and a simple conjunction plus non-jussive YIQTOL.

--
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