Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Yitzhak,

There are several interesting points in your post, and I am sorry that I 
cannot 
address them all

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> Dear Rolf,

snip

>
> Dealing with the MT consonantal as well as vocalization text, then,
> requires understanding of its place in history and so cannot be
> easily mixed with the DSS evidence as is suggested by your post
> ("I basically use the unpointed text of the Tanakh and the DSS").
> You seem to admit that the vocalization allows one to defend a
> "four-component model" (what happened to vatiqtol in these "four
> components"?).  You then claim that a strong case can still be
> made for a two component model.  In other words, you seem to
> say, "when I have unvocalized text, I can claim that one cannot
> differentiate vattiqtol from vatiqtol, but when I have vocalized text,
> the differentiation can still be defended but I can still make a
> strong case that there is no difference."  The problem is that you
> are moving from less information to more information, yet your
> conclusions seem to imply that with less information you can
> somehow be more conclusive than with more information.  This
> suggests that you were not as careful as you should have been
> when you had less information, and that in fact, something in
> your analysis of the texts with less information (the DSS, when
> Hebrew was still a living language!) is flawed.  The bottom line
> appears to be that you admit that the vocalizations do not
> permit you to make a definite conclusion regarding the verbal
> system, only a strong case in your opinion but the main opinion
> of scholarship apparently "can still be defended."

 
RF
The paragraph above is important, so I will make several comments.
The goal of my study of the verbal system of classical Hebrew has been to 
find the semantic meaning of the finite and infinite verbs. In practical 
application it means that I have searched for clauses that are so restricted 
that a particular characteristic only can be caused by the verb form itself 
and not by any other linguistic factors. Of the thousands of clauses in the 
Tanakh, about 500 fill this requirement.  Please look at examples 1) and 2) 
below. Which part of event time is made visible in the two examples? In 1) it 
is clearly the beginning of ET and a small part of the action (reference time 
intersects event time atthe beginning). Thus, I would translate BNH as "he 
began to build". What is made visible of ET in 2) Nothing is said about the 
time it took tobuild the throne, whether it was more or less than a year. So 
we cannot know whether the beginning or end of ET is made visible or the 
whole ET. This indicates that there is an extra-linguistic factor that helps 
us see what is made visible in 1), namly a knowledge of the world: it took 
more than one year to build the temple. Therefore, a WAYYIQTOL (as in 1 Kings 
6:1) can make visible the beginning and a small part of the ET; and this must 
be a property of the verb form itself, since it is not caused by a 
combination of linguistic factors in the clause. I do not need the vowels to 
reach this conclusion, but the vowels shows that the mentioned property 
belong to a WAYYIQTOL verb.

1) In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out from 
the land of Egypt....he BUILD  the temple for YHWH. 1 Kings 6:1

2) In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out from 
the land of Egypt....he BUILD  built a throne of gold. 

It is not correct that I draw conclusions on the basis of less information 
and that I apply these to situations with more information. The point is that 
I am not dependent on a particular theory of the Masoretic vowels, but in my 
arguments I use the Masoretic vowels extensively. Below I address two 
important points, 1) the cognate languages, and 2) the number of conjugations 
in classical Hebrew.

 .
 HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANGUAGES

The Masoretic text suggests 5 different verb groups and not just 4, given 
that the prefixed WAW signals a new group. It is clearly inconsistent to 
claim just 4 conjugtions; this is a result of picking what one likes from the 
combination of morphology and function. The only scholar I recall who is 
consistent here is A. Niccacci, who deals with 5 different conjugations.  
Below is a comparison of 5 Semitic languages. I use the QTL in all cases, 
with the traditional root in parantheses. It is often said that Hebrew has a 
long and a short prefix-form, but this can be a fairly tale, as the 
comparison indicates. Two languages have a distinction between a long and a 
short prefix-form, namely Akkadian and Ge´ez, and the distinction is 
vowel/lack of vowel after the first root consonant. A YEQATTAL form in not 
found in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Ugaritic. In Ugaritic, however, a long and short 
prefix-form of a different kind are postulated, one with an -U after the 
third root consonant and another lacking this -U (This distinction is 
questionable; one chapter in a book published in Jerusalem in 2007 denies 
that there is such a distinction. I lost the reference to this book; do you 
know it?)  

Hebrew:      QATAL                       -      YIQTOL

Aramaic:     QETAL                       -      YIQTUL

Ge´ez:         QATALA  (nagara)    -       YEQTOL (yenger)   YEQATTEL 
(yenagger)

Ugritic:        QATALA                            YAQTUL?  (YAQTULU?)

Akkadian:   YIQTATAL (iptaras)  -      YIQTUL (iprus)   -  YIQATTAL (iparras)

In Hebrew, the imperatives are short and some modal forms (jussive) are short 
( though hundreds of jussives that could have been shortened are long). That 
modality (alternative worlds) are expressed by short forms does not prove 
that there really are two prefix-forms in Hebrew (the YIQTOL-YEGATTAL 
distinction is lacking). Some Hiphils, hollow verbs, and lamed he verbs are 
apocopated, but this can be explained phonologically (by the retraction of 
stress) and the tendency in Hebrew to loose the endings of words (e.g. proper 
names with -YAHU  versus YA at the end.) Therefore, I challenge any one on 
the list who believe there is a long and a short prefix form in classical 
Hebrew, in old or younger texts, to prove it; I do not accept conjecture, 
only proofs.  In order to be perfectly clear the problem is this: Show there 
is one short prefix conjugation and one long prefix conjugation in classical 
Hebrew, and that the morphologically short forms we find are not normal 
prefix-forms that have been shortened on the basis of the context!

Then we come to the most important side of the comparison.  The claim is that 
in classical Hebrew the meaning of two forms has been turned upside-down, to 
the very  opposite of what it was. Some prefix-forms with present/future 
meaning (or, being imperfective) have acquired a past (or perfective) 
meaning, and some suffix-forms with past (or, perfective) meaning have 
acquired a present/future (or imperfective) meaning. And the sign of this is 
a prefixed WAW (WE- or         WAY(Y)-). This sounds like a fairy tail, and 
it is unprecedented among the cognate languages, yes, it is unprecedented 
among the languages of the world. Thus, the cognate languages speak against 
the four-compnent model. What I have outlined above is the reason why I find 
no help in the cognate languages in finding the meaning of classical Hebrew 
verbs.


FOUR CONJUGATIONS VERSUS TWO

My suggestion is that the Masoretes distinguished between 5 different groups 
of verbs on a pragmatic basis, and that they did not view them as 5 different 
conjugations in the modern semantic sense of the word. Later grammarians, 
however, interpreted 4 of the groups in a semantic way, and given their lack 
electronic tagged texts and modern linguistic tools, this is understandable. 
In G.Kahn (2000) The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought 
there are many clues indicating a process from a pragmatic understanding to a 
semantic one. The four-component model was created in the first part of the 
second millennium C.E. and the distincion was that of tense. In the second 
part of the nineteenth century when aspect was introduced, the four 
conjugations were upheld, but they were now interpreted aspects - although 
there is no one-to-one correspondence between tense and aspect (a 
methodological fallacy). The real problem today is that the four-component 
nature of Hebrew verbs is used as an idiom or assumption, and when you start 
with four, you end up with four. 
To comment on your words above, I would say that when the working hypothesis 
says four components, and the student does not consider the whole text, 
entertain the view that the narrative verbs must either be preterits or 
perfective , and s/he uses one of the traditional definitions of aspect, 
without researching it, I understand that the final conclusion will be "four 
components". I do not say that the Hebrew text invites to a four-component 
view; this is only superficial.

I started without the straightjacket of assumptions mentioned above 
considering the possibilities:

1) Classical Hebrew can have 1, 2, 3, or 4 conjugations.
2) The narrative verb needs not be preterit or perfective.
3) We cannot use aspectual definitions that confuse Aktionsart and aspect or 
are derived from the Indo-European languages. But if aspects are found in 
Hebrew, they must be defined on the basis of Hebrew verbs themselves, since 
they may be language-specific.

Just the acceptance of point 2 shows that WAYYIQTOL needs not be a 
conjugation different from YIQTOL. If imperfective verbs or verbs without an 
intrinsic past tense can be used as narrative verbs, there is no compelling 
reason why WAYYIQTOL should be something different from a YIQTOL with a 
prefixed conjunction.

You suggest that I may have not been as careful as I should have been in my 
study, and you are certainly correct. In a study with a corpus of 80,000 
verbs everything cannot be done as carefully as it should have been, and many 
opportunities for detailed research are still available. But I think my basic 
conclusions stand on a very solid foundation. With your good knowledge of 
Hebrew and the cognate languages, you should read my dissertation and see for 
yourself.



>
> Best,
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From peter AT qaya.org  Thu Mar 15 13:01:12 2007
Return-Path: <peter AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.bcisgnet.co.uk (mail.bcisgnet.co.uk [212.100.232.232])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1254C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:01:11 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mail.bcisgnet.co.uk (mail.bcisgnet.co.uk [212.100.232.232])
        by mail.bcisgnet.co.uk with ESMTP id l2FH10sx006110
        (SMTP Authenticated by TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3
        cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NOT) ;
        Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:01:00 GMT
Message-ID: <45F97BD9.2000502 AT qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:01:13 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
References: <001601c76715$a0e9cec0$1a46fea9@ttttt>
In-Reply-To: <001601c76715$a0e9cec0$1a46fea9@ttttt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by ClamAV (http://www.clamav.net/
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 212.100.232.232
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:01:12 -0000

On 15/03/2007 15:21, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> ... It is often said that Hebrew has a long and a short prefix-form,
> but this can be a fairly tale, as the comparison indicates. ...

This is not a fairy tale, as I have convincingly proved even from the
unpointed text.

> ...
> In Hebrew, the imperatives are short and some modal forms (jussive) are 
> short ( though hundreds of jussives that could have been shortened are 
> long). ...

Not hundreds, I think. Of the lamed he verbs, only 20 jussive forms (out
of 170, as marked in the Westminster database) are not shortened,
according to the data I gave on 10th March. These are not all of the
forms which can be shortened, but they are I think the majority of them,
certainly of those where the shortening is clear in the unpointed text.

> ... That modality (alternative worlds) are expressed by short forms does 
> not prove that there really are two prefix-forms in Hebrew (the 
> YIQTOL-YEGATTAL distinction is lacking). Some Hiphils, hollow verbs, and 
> lamed he verbs are apocopated, but this can be explained phonologically (by 
> the retraction of stress) and the tendency in Hebrew to loose the endings 
> of words (e.g. proper names with -YAHU  versus YA at the end.) Therefore, I 
> challenge any one on the list who believe there is a long and a short 
> prefix form in classical Hebrew, in old or younger texts, to prove it; I do 
> not accept conjecture, only proofs.  In order to be perfectly clear the 
> problem is this: Show there is one short prefix conjugation and one long 
> prefix conjugation in classical Hebrew, and that the morphologically short 
> forms we find are not normal prefix-forms that have been shortened on the 
> basis of the context!
>
>
Well, it is clear that there are two forms, one shortened and one not
shortened. The question which we need to resolve is whether this
distinction is semantically or phonologically conditioned, or I suppose
some combination of these. I suppose that what you are looking for is
minimal pairs of shortened and non-shortened verbs in exactly the same
phonological environment. I'm sure I can find such cases, in both the
unpointed and the pointed text. But would you accept any such evidence?
Or would you claim that there is some phonological difference which is
not reflected in the text?

> Then we come to the most important side of the comparison.  The claim is 
> that in classical Hebrew the meaning of two forms has been turned 
> upside-down, to the very  opposite of what it was. ...

Just to clarify, that is not my claim, and I have not seen this claim
anywhere on this list. Rather, this is a crude way of describing how the
distinction may have been presented, over-simplistically, in some
introductory grammars, and perhaps by some older grammarians. I don't
think anyone is defending this crude understanding today.

The claim, at least my claim, is rather that the WAYYIQTOL is not a
combination of the conjunction plus YIQTOL, but is an originally
distinct verb form with distinct semantics which, as a result of regular
language changes, has come to have a similar but not identical form to
the conjunction plus YIQTOL.

Let me repeat, I AGREE WITH YOU that vav does not convert YIQTOL from
imperfective to perfective.

But it is not without precedent in languages for prefixes to convert
verbs from imperfective to perfective. Indeed in Russian this is what
any prefix does! - unless the change is cancelled by a suffix or infix
which makes the verb imperfective again. Example:

pis-at' "write" (imperfective)
za-pis-at' "write down" (perfective)
za-pis-yva-t' "write down" (imperfective)

...
> Just the acceptance of point 2 shows that WAYYIQTOL needs not be a 
> conjugation different from YIQTOL. If imperfective verbs or verbs without 
> an intrinsic past tense can be used as narrative verbs, there is no 
> compelling reason why WAYYIQTOL should be something different from a YIQTOL 
> with a prefixed conjunction.
>
>
But can they? Do you have any evidence of narrative verbs in any
language being neither perfective nor intrinsically past?

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/