Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fw: Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:15:29 +0000

On 18/03/2007 11:16, Rolf Furuli wrote:

... As for the WAYYIQTOL of 1 Kings 18:38, in my view it is exactly the same form as in 6:1. As I showed in my previous post, the differences between a short and long prefix form in the cognate languages is a vowel after the first root consonant. The Hebrew YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs are therefore short prefix forms, and I see absolutely no reason to view an apocopated lamed he verb as a different form compared with a full form. ...

I'm sorry, Rolf, but this is factually incorrect. By the definition of "form", two words which are spelled differently are different forms. You can argue if you wish that the difference between these forms is one of free variation or is purely phonologically conditioned. The alternative hypothesis which Yitzhak and I are arguing for, or at least that it should be seriously considered, is that this difference of form reflects a semantic difference. Each of these three hypotheses has a priori an equal status, and for each of them we need arguments in favour and/or against. It seems that all you can argue is that the semantic difference hypothesis has not been proved and the phonological difference one is possible, therefore we should assume that the difference is phonological. But you should at least concede that the phonological difference hypothesis has not been proved and the semantic difference one is possible, and therefore we cannot safely make any assumptions one way or the other. Beyond that I doubt if we can find proof, but we certainly can find carefully described and plausible semantic explanations of the difference. I have never seen any carefully described phonological explanation of the difference. Can you offer us one? Is there one in your self-published dissertation? Can you refer us to one which someone else has done? Or are you simply speculating that a phonological explanation is possible?

I accept that the non-apocopated WAYYIQTOL in 1 Kings 18:32 is somewhat anomalous, especially as it is followed (the very next verb) by an apocopated WAYYIQTOL. It is possible that the first verb is a mis-pointed imperfective WEYIQTOL, and so we should render "And he was building an altar ... and he made the trench". But I accept that that interpretation is a bit forced.


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page