Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Here's what I'm saying: there are some formal tending differences 
between BH consonantal verbal forms which may point to the existence of 
separate verbs: as you know what is known as the long prefix verb and 
the short prefix verb. The differences that are apparent in a 
consonantal text are confirmed to a greater degree in a vocalised text. 
These formal differences are tied to different semantics, a further 
confirmation that we have in fact two verbal paradigms. Comparative 
Semitics then confirms this picture for me. You have to disagree on 
every aspect of this: consonantal differences are minimised and 
explained away; the vocalised text is seen to not represent semantic 
distinctions; comparative Semitic evidence is minimised or doubt cast 
upon it.

There are still other posts of mine that you haven't given answer to. 
But to raise one point from there that I'm particularly interested in. 
You said: "The principle of a property being uncancellable is very 
simple: Even a shoolboy understands that the clauses 'I will come 
yesterday' and 'I came tomorrow' are ungrammatical. There is no purpose 
in trying to find a special situation where one of the clauses can be used."

I raised the point that the same distributional situation applies in BH: 
'ethmol and 'emesh are restricted to qatal and machar is restricted to 
yiqtol. My take is that these are tense restrictions: 'ethmol and 'emesh 
like English "yesterday" select the past tense while machar like English 
"tomorrow" selects the future tense. But given that you reject a 
tense-prominent analysis, what is your explanation of this 
distributional verbal restriction with temporal adverbs?

Regards,
David Kummerow.

ps. I don't know why we've suddenly moved to DSS Hebrew. I can't point 
to any paragogic nuns there, and the third-person pronominal suffixes 
augmented with nun have probably died out also. But for BH, there are 
many examples, with their use restricted to the long prefix verb.


> 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 <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org 
> <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>>
> 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