Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/