Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

I agree with Karl that the clauses that fit your criteria are too few to
tell us much. Moreover, several different verb forms are used with the 
adverbs.

For example, in Genesis 30:33, Exodus 19:10, 1 Samuel 11:10 and 20:18  a 
QATAL with prefixed WAW (WEQATAL) is used with MXR. I take these  as 
perfective, but you do not accept this. Then we are back to the basics, we 
need to find out whether there are two or four conjugations before the 
clauses with the mentioned adverbs can tell us anything. In Exodus 5:8 a 
participle isused with TMWL and in 2 Samuel 15:20 an infinitive is used. 
There is no consistency in the use of verbs.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew