Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 3/10/07, Rolf Furuli wrote:

Dear Rolf,

> 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.

I think you are twisting my words around here.  You were arguing against the 
use
of grammaticalization theories, and claiming that you can use the Massoretic
consonantal text, but more importantly, the Massoretic vocalization,
as a tool to
test a prediction of grammaticalization because "we have an ideal
situation."  The
truth is that the situation is far from ideal and that the prediction
cannot be tested
so easily if at all.  Of course, just because we cannot so easily disprove
grammaticalization, does not mean we should automatically accept or assume
it.  We must just realize that both a theory of grammaticalization and a 
theory
of lack thereof, must both be advanced and defended in view of incomplete and
problematic evidence.

> 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.

Well, as I suppose you probably know, the advance of scholars towards
analysis of "waw-conversive" as in fact waw-consecutive before a preterite was
grounded in advances in scholarship in the Amarna texts.  It was the Amarna
texts which led to a renewed analysis of the Biblical verb forms on the basis
of those texts.  I am not sure why you think that claims regarding 
Proto-Hebrew
cannot be utilized because its existence is not "proven" but "assumed"
-- do you
simply deny that Amarna vocables can teach us about an earlier stage of the
Hebrew language?  do you deny that cognate languages such as Aramaic or
Ugaritic can teach us about this earlier stage of the Hebrew language / Proto-
Hebrew?  What have Comparative Semitists been doing for the last hundred
years if not to demonstrate an Afroasiatic (and daughter stage - 
Proto-Semitic)
language?

> 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.

This is a nice belief.  But if you take into account that there were
several sound
shifts (long a > qamats, short tsere > segol), loss of many short
vowels (compare
"bywmy" (*[bayome:] of DSS with [bi:me:] of the MT, or "xwzyr"
*[x(o/u)(z)zi:r] of the
DSS with [xazi:r] of the MT), and a loss of phonemic vowel length and
adoption of
standardized vowel lengths, to name some major changes, that you realize that
there are more than a few exceptions.  The vocalization c. 850 CE cannot be
understood to represent the vocalization of the text as it was
pronounced c. 150
BCE (for those texts that existed c. 150 BCE).

> 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.

While a similar text did exist, the question is exactly regarding
those exceptions --
such as an he (or absence of he) in lamed-he prefix-conjugations, or a
use of a waw
in front of a yqtl form.  We can't trust that the text was exactly the
same on these
cases because some changes were or could have still been adopted in the
consonantal text.

Yitzhak Sapir