Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

Please note that I do not appeal to any uncancellable principle when I claim
that it is impossible to distinguish between WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in
unpointed texts. And further, when someone appeals to semantics in this
connection, this person is arguing in a circle. Exactly the same is true
when the concept "jussive" is introduced. What you do when you assess an
unpointed text in the light of semantics, or when you use grammatical
concepts such as "jussive", you make an interpretation of the grammar of the
vocalised Masoretic text, and then you extrapolate this interpretation into
the unpointed text. You can hardly find a better example of circularity.

Let me repeat this for the third time: You can only answer the question
regarding how many conjugations we can distinguish in an unvocalised text by
morphology and morphology alone. In order to get rid of any circular
thoughts in our mind when we approach an unpointed text, we must forget
everything we think we know about Hebrew grammar and just look at the
consonants of this text. Is this elementary principle really so difficult to
understand?

In the consonant text of the DSS we can distinguish between verb forms with 
prefixes
and other verb forms with suffixes. Some of these forms have a prefixed WAW,
and others have no prefixed WAW. Two questions can be asked:

1) Do prefix-forms with and without WAW constitute two different
conjugations, and DO THE suffix-forms with and without WAW constitute two 
different
conjugations?

2) Do some perfix-forms with prefixed WAW constitute two different
conjugations? And do suffix-forms with prefixed WAW constitue two different
conjugations?

How in the world can you answer these questions on the basis of morphology
alone? You cannot do that, because the crucial point in order to demonstrate
that there are more than two conjugtions is to demonstrate that the prefixed
WAW is something different from the conjunction. That cannot be done on the
basis of morphology alone.

Now, if we allow some circularity and try to apply our grammatical
understanding of the pointed text to the unvoclised one, can we then make a
good case for a four-component model on the basis of unpointed texts.
Definitely not! Since neither vowels nor stress is seen in unvocalised
texts, and the plene writing is rather haphazard, neither hollow verbs, nor
Hiphils can be used as distinctive factors. The only possibility is to use
apocopated lamed he verbs. But this attempt also has ITS problems, since we 
do
not know whether the apocopation  is caused by stress, thus being
pragmatic, or by some semantic factor.

It is interesting that the interpretation of which forms the in the DSS
would
have been vocalised by the Masoretes as WAYYIQTOLs vary. In 8 of the big
documents Mark
Smith found 55 WAYYIQTOLs, the Accordance text has 106, and Furuli has 152.
In order for you not to rely on my numbers, please do a search in a tagged
text. An Accordance search for apocopated WAYYIQTOLs in the DSS gave 204
examples, and
a search for apocopated YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW gave 74 examples. The
examples are interpretations made on the basis of function, thus presuming
the four-component interpretation of the Masoretic text, som they are not
necessarily reliable. However, these examples show that a distinction
between two prefix-conjugations is impossible. I count 32 apocopated lamed
he verbs in the WAYYIQTOL group and 22 apocopated lamed he verbs in the
YIQTOLs-with-prefixed-WAW group.Below are 10 examples of each.  My challenge
to you is: Show how the examples of the two groups below can  be
distinguished in the unvocalised text on the basis of morphology. That is 
necessary inorder to prove your point.

APOCOPATED YIQTOLS WITH PREFIXED WAW

1QS 4:21
1QS 6:22
1QM 11:9
1QHa 11:34
1QHa 16:8
4Q162 1:1
4Q162 2:9
4Q168 f 1:5
11QT 56:8
11QT 62:4

APOCOPATED WAYYIQTOLs

CD 1:21
10QpHab 5:12
1QHa 13:28
1QHa 13:31
1QHa 14:24
1QHa 17.24
1QHa 23.4
4Q252 1:16
4Q301f2b:3
4Q434 f 1i:2

One last question: One distinguishing criterion in your opinion is that 
paragogic NUN only is found with YIQTOLs. Can you give just a single example 
from the DSS of such a paragogic NUN?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> [snip]
> > On the contrary, I have countered this by providing clear evidence that
> > for lamed-he verbs there are in the unpointed text two different prefix
> > forms, one apocopated and always preceded with vav and the other not
> > apocopated, which are distinct (but occasionally confused) at least in
> > the 3rd person singular. And that is quite apart from the jussive. I
> > await your response to my evidence for this, posted here on 10th March.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> > E-mail:  peter at qaya.org
> > <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>
> > Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> > Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
> I also raised the related evidence of a) Hiphil 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of all
> verbs except final-heh; b) Qal 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms of hollow verbs; c)
> wayyiqtol and jussive do not take the the third-person pronominal
> suffixes augmented with nun; and d) paragogic nun is found only with
> yiqtol. The internal BH evidence points, therefore, to the possibility
> of wayyiqtol and yiqtol being formally separate verbs. Taking semantics
> into account confirms it for me, although not for Rolf due to his
> "uncancellabity principle". And this is not even to take into account
> the wide Semitic picture. Despite Rolf's attack at Rainey on certain
> points, Rainey's analysis of the Armarna Canaanite verbal system stands
> and will probably still be accepted by most apart from those operating
> with an "uncancellabity principle".

RF
Rainey is an experienced scholar whose works on the Amarna letters have 
given us much insight. My criticism relates his confusion of Aktionsart and 
aspect and his untenable criteria for distinguishing between punctual and 
duartive actions. If the Aktionsart of a verb is durative, how can an aspect 
or tense make it durative? And how can we know that a past action is 
punctual if the Aktionsart of the verb is durative?
> I've also raised other evidence in at least three posts which Rolf
> hasn't addressed.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo