Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Harold,

See below:


> David Kummerow wrote:
>  > Since Rolf's dissertation is figuring prominently in current discussions
>  > on this forum, over the last two days I decided to actually read it.
>  > Based on this reading, I offer some reflective comments for those who
>  > don't currently have access.
>  >
>
> HH: Thank you, David. You get a gold star for this effort.

That's OK. It has helped me to see something of the larger picture of 
Rolf's efforts. Right from the outset, the the assessments of previous 
scholarship (I should probably rather say "dismissal") and the 
conclusions reached by the dissertation DIRECTLY relate to the chosen 
methodology, on which is is written at the outset (p.32):

"When we choose a methodology, it is extremely important to 
differentiate between the parts that have an intrinsic meaning that 
never change, and those parts whose meaning is dependent upon the 
context and are unchangeable. So we should differentiate between 
semantics and pragmatics."

Why it is "extremely important" is not explained, merely stated; and 
proof of the linguistic reality of intrinsic and uncancellable meaning, 
again, is not demonstrated, merely stated.

(As an aside, I find it interesting that those operating with the same 
methodology in regards to ancient Greek see only aspectual verbal 
distinctions and nothing of tense...)


>  >
>  >
>  > 2. Further on grammaticalisation, the claim of the dissertation is that
>  > after an exhaustive analysis of wayyiqtol that evidence supporting the
>  > grammaticalisation of wayyiqtol is unable to be found. However,
>  > crucially, the dissertation has failed to investigate avenues where such
>  > grammaticalisation is possibly seen, viz. the inclusion of the suffix
>  > verb in a paradigm originally dominated by prefix verbs.
>  >
>
> HH: Could you please explain or expand the last sentence above. I don't
> understand what you mean by "inclusion." I don't know what paradigm you
> are speaking about.

Sure. What I mean is that diachronic treatments of Hebrew as a Semitic 
language have fairly convincingly demonstrated that the primary verbal 
system was previously composed of prefix verbs (see, eg, Cook 2001, 
2002; Andersen 2000; etc). That is, the suffix verb as we know it in BH 
was not part of the verbal system per se. However, in time it developed 
pronominal inflections and come to be included in the verbal system, ie 
it began to form paradigmatic contrasts with the prefix verbs. Inclusion 
within paradigms necessarily involve some overlap in function and the 
retreat of functions of other paradigmatic members. All this is evidence 
of grammaticalisation, but is not treated by the dissertation.


>  > 3. An interesting point is made that "[t]o demonstrate that wayyiqtol is
>  > a semantically independent conjunction, one has to show ... that the
>  > widespread use of wayyiqtol with past reference is due to the semantic
>  > meaning of the form, and not just a linguistic convention" (p.48). To my
>  > mind, this is nonsense: linguistic convention (i.e., the regular choice
>  > of speakers to use similar linguistic tokens) defines meaning. In other
>  > words, the entrenchment of meaning is related to linguistic frequency.
>  > The prising apart here of "semantic meaning" and "linguistic convention"
>  > means that much ink is spilled in the dissertation upon a fruitless
>  > quest for contexts in which "uncancellable semantic meaning" may be
>  > ascertained.
>  >
>
> HH: I will guess that Rolf is thinking of the past meaning associated
> with wayyiqtol due to its utilization to show consecutive action in past
> tense narrative settings.

I guess so, but it flies in the face of what psycholinguistic research 
has demonstrated repeatedly for the last twenty years. Again, the 
dissertation does not demonstrate or argue the point, it merely states 
it. Interestingly, the dissertation accepts grammaticalisation in 
principle; however, I am unable to see how grammaticalisation is able to 
proceed in a language if, in fact, "semantic meaning" and "linguistic 
convention" have nothing to do with each other.


>  > 4. Areas of research which quite potentially have much bearing on
>  > aspects of discussion are neglected: a) the distribution of qatal and
>  > yiqtol with temporal adverbs "yesterday" and "tomorrow"; b) in
>  > conjunction with the present-tense uses of (we)qatal no investigation is
>  > made of cosubordination, politeness, gnomics, and performatives;
>
> HH: I know you have talked about it recently, but could you please
> explain again the meaning of the term cosubordination. It makes me think
> of verbs linked by conjunctions in subordinate clauses. Is that what you
> mean?

Good reading on clause linkage and verbal deranking in general see: 
Foley and van Valin 1984: ch 6; van Valin and LaPolla 1997: ch 8; 
Cristofaro 2003; Lehmann 1988; Haspelmath forthcoming.

Cosubordinate clauses sit somewhere between "main clauses" and 
"subordinate clauses". Often they have characteristics of main clauses 
(which is commonly the use of what are formally main verbs) and that of 
subordinate clauses. A cosubordinate clause is one which inherits tense, 
mood, aspect, or illocutionary force from the main clause. For BH, this 
has been demonstrated for weqatal in volative contexts by Dallaire 2002 
and Diehl 2004. Dallaire, for example, has convincingly demonstrated to 
functional use of cosubordinate weqatal in volative contexts as a polite 
form, ie it is the linguistic means of escaping the repeated use of an 
imperative form (other languages use other means; see, eg, Heath 1991, 
1998), yet is cosubordinate to the imperative. However, cosubordinate 
uses of weqatal are not restricted to volative contexts and have a 
exceptionally wide distribution. Matthew Anstey is publishing an article 
on this.



>  > c) the
>  > distribution of paragogic nun; d) the distribution of third-person
>  > pronominal suffixes augmented with nun; e) the possibility of
>  > exaggerated futures with qatal (presumably because this is in conflict
>  > with the advanced methodology);
>
> HH: What do you mean by an "exaggerated future"?

See Rogland 2003: 92-95. An example of this would be Isa 6:5.


>  >  and f) default use of qatal in
>  > non-paratactic constructions being anterior. Now in one sense it does
>  > not matter what we label a verb so long as we accurately describe its
>  > range of use. However, it is useful for labelling to reflect
>  > prototypical function as some sort of mnemonic. The debate, then, is
>  > over what is seen to be the prototypical use of the different BH verb
>  > conjugations. The trouble as I see it with the dissertation is that
>  > because of its methodology of finding uncancellable meaning, it is
>  > unable to convincingly demonstrate prototypical meaning. The reason is
>  > that the BH verbs, as indeed verbs, words, etc in other languages, are
>  > multifunctional, i.e. they have more than one function. This is
>  > particularly so with qatal, which may be seen as an extreme case of
>  > multifunctionality. Multifunctionality basically implies incomplete
>  > grammaticalisation and fuzziness. However, what if that multifunctional
>  > fuzziness is essentially, as is the case with qatal, the multifunction
>  > of a verbal conjugation that can be (construnctionally?) used for
>  > anterior, performatives, gnomics, hypothetical/conditional, exaggerated
>  > futures, etc? That is, there is a fuzziness to the range of uses which a
>  > methodology that starts with the premise that meaning solely falls into
>  > either (the non-fuzzy categories) "cancellable meaning" and
>  > "uncancellable meaning" is unable to describe or relate to. And a
>  > related fault, then, is that linguistic convention is seen to have no
>  > bearing on semantics. (I guess I should point out that the debate
>  > concerning the prototypical function of the BH verbal conjugations could
>  > similarly be had over other fuzzy areas of language: function words
>  > [esp. when not completely grammaticalised], the meaning of lexical
>  > items, etc etc etc [the list is basically endless due to the fact that
>  > speakers are unable to have an exhaustive inventory of semantic and
>  > pragmatic meanings upon which to draw: generalisation, economy,
>  > polysemy, and conceptual grouping are central aspects of language]. As
>  > such, I am unconvinced that the methodology rigorously followed in the
>  > dissertation is able to produce fruitful results in existent linguistic
>  > multifunctionality and if the area of investigation exhibits incomplete
>  > grammaticalisation.
>  >
>  >
> HH: The issue seems to have something to do with the paucity of forms in
> biblical Hebrew. If the language users made an unconscious choice not to
> multiply forms with functions, then they would need to assign an
> existent form to cover whatever new function came into view.

You miss my point. Wherever you look in language, semantically there is 
a paucity of forms. Some language's "grammars" show paucity in different 
areas, but there is nevertheless, as I stated above, generalisation, 
economy, polysemy, and conceptual grouping occurring commonly in 
language. Just how this is played out varies from one language to the 
next. It is the tension between, to use Haiman's (2004) terminology, of 
"efficiency and complexity in grammars".



> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard

I want to make it clear that I am personally by no means an expert on 
the BH verbal system. I dabble in some reading, but it is by no means my 
speciality: my own research interests lie elsewhere. I thus find it 
strange that many works relevant to the topic (some more so than others, 
of course) are not listed bibliographically and hence are not interacted 
with. I jotted down a few that came to mind of the top of my head and 
then pulled the details from my EndNote file:

Blau, Joshua. 1978. “כינויי נסתר ונסתרת בנ׳ ובלעדיה בעברית המקרא 
[Pronominal Third Person Singular Suffixes with and without נ in 
Biblical Hebrew].” Eretz-Israel 14: 125-131.
Buth, Randall. 1984. “Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat.” Journal 
for the Study of the New Testament 21: 67-83.
Buth, Randall. 1986. “The Taxonomy and Function of Hebrew Tense-Shifting 
in the Psalms (qātal–yiqtol–yiqtol–qātal, Antithetical Grammatical 
Parallelism).” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 15: 26-32.
Dallaire, Hélène. 2002. “The Syntax of Volitives in Northwest Semitic 
Prose.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union College.
DeCaen, Vincent. 2003. “Moveable nun and Intrusive nun: The Nature and 
Distribution of Verbal Nunation in Joel and Job.” Journal of Northwest 
Semitic Languages 29/1: 121-132.
Diehl, Johannes F. 2004. Die Fortführung des Imperativs im Biblischen 
Hebräisch. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 286. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2000. “Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation 
Aspect.” Journal of Semitic Studies 45: 21-53.
Dyk, Janet and Eep Talstra. 1988. “Computer-Assisted Study of 
Syntactical Change, the Shift in Use of the Participle in Biblical and 
Post-Biblical Texts.” Pages 49-62 in Distributions spatiales et 
temporelles, constellations des manuscrits. Edited by Pieter van Reenen 
and Karin van Reenen-Stein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ehrensvärd, Martin. 1997. “Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical 
Hebrew.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11: 29-40.
Ehrensvärd, Martin. 2000. “Studies in the Syntax and the Dating of 
Biblical Hebrew.” PhD diss., University of Aarhus.
Fox, Andrew J. 1984. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Infinitive, Form and 
Function: A Diachronic Study with Cross-Linguistic Implication.” PhD 
diss., University of California.
Gordon, Amnon. 1982. “The Development of the Participle in Biblical, 
Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 8: 1-59.
Harmelink, Bryan L. 2004. “Exploring the Syntactic, Semantic, and 
Pragmatic Uses of וַיְהִי in Biblical Hebrew.” PhD diss., Westminster 
Theological Seminary.
Hetzron, Robert. 1969. “Third Person Singular Pronoun Suffixes in 
Proto-Semitic.” Orientalia Suecana 8: 101-127.
Holst, Søren. 2004. “Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal 
System and the Qumran War Scroll.” PhD diss., University of Copenhagen.
Huehnergard, John. 1987. “‘Stative,’ Predicative Form, Pseudo-Verb.” 
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47/3: 215-232.
Huesman, John. 1956. “Finite Uses of the Infinitive Absolute.” Biblica 
37: 271-295.
Jenni, Ernst. 2000. “Aktionsarten und Stammformen im Althebräischen: Das 
Pi‘el in verbesserter Sicht.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13: 67-90.
Kaufman, Stephen A. 1991. “An Emphatic Plea for Please.” Maarav 7: 195-198.
Kurylowicz, J. 1973. “Verbal Aspect in Semitic.” Orientalia 42: 114-120.
Lambdin, Thomas O. 1971. “The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic 
Definite Article.” Pages 315-333 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of 
William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: John 
Hopkins Press.
Lambert M. 1903. “De l’emploi des suffixes pronominaux avec noun et sans 
noun.” Revue des etudes juives 46: 178-183.
Li, Tarsee. 1999. “The Expression of Sequence and Non-Sequence in 
Northwest Semitic Narrative Prose.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union College.
Müller, Hans-Peter. 1991. “wa-, ha- und das Imperfectum consecutivum.” 
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4: 144-160.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1975. “The Nun Energicum and the Prefix Conjugation 
in Biblical Hebrew.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1: 63-71.
Myhill, John. 1992. “Word Order and Temporal Sequencing.” Pages 265-278 
in Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. Edited by Doris L. Payne. 
Typological Studies in Language 22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Myhill, John. 1992. “Verb Position in Future Clauses in Biblical 
Hebrew.” Language Variation and Change 4: 289-309.
Myhill, John. 1995. “Non-Emphatic Fronting in Biblical Hebrew.” 
Theoretical Linguistics 21: 93-144.
Myhill, John. 1997. “Toward a Functional Typology of Agent Defocusing.” 
Linguistics 35: 799-844.
Myhill, John and Zhiqun Xing. 1993. “The Discourse Functions of Patient 
Fronting: A Comparative Study of Biblical Hebrew and Chinese.” 
Linguistics 31: 25-57.
Myhill, John M. 1984. “A Study of Aspect, Word Order, and Voice.” PhD 
diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Nash, Peter T. 1992. “The Hebrew Qal Active Participle: A Non-Aspectual 
Narrative Backgrounding Element. PhD diss., University of Chicago.
Noyer, Robert Rolf. 1992. “Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous 
Morphological Structure.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Prince, Alan S. 1975. “The Phonology and Morphology of Tiberian Hebrew.” 
PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Qimron, Elisha. 1998. “הצעה הדשה לפירוש צורות העתיד בעברית הקדומה [A New 
Approach Toward Interpreting the Imperfect Verbal Forms in Early 
Hebrew].” Lĕšonénu 61: 31-43.
Qimron, Elisha. 1986-1987. “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The 
Form of the Imperfect with waw in Biblical Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly 
Review 77: 149-161.
Rainey, A. F. 2003. “The Suffix Conjugation Pattern in Ancient Hebrew: 
Tense and Modal Functions.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40: 3-42.
Rainey, Anson F. 2003. “The yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic.” 
Pages 395-407 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented 
to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 
Edited by M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen. Orientalia 
Lovaniensia Analecta 118. Leuven: Peeters.
Rata, Cristian G. 2004. “The Verbal System in the Book of Job.” PhD 
diss., University of Toronto.
Riekert, S. J. P. K. 1979. “The Struct Patterns of the Paronomastic and 
Co-Ordinated Infinitives in Genesis.” Journal of Northwest Semitic 
Languages 7: 69-83.
Rogland, Max. 2003. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew. 
Studia Semitica Neerlandica 44. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rogland, Max. 2003. “Remarks on the Aramaic Verbal System.” Pages 
421-432 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to 
Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited 
by M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen. Orientalia Lovaniensia 
Analecta 118. Leuven: Peeters.
Rubinstein, A. 1952. “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute 
in Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 2: 362-367.
Shulman, Ahouva. 1996. “The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew 
Prose.” PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Shulman, Ahouva. 1999. “The Particle נָא in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” 
Hebrew Studies 40: 57-82.
Shulman, Ahouva. 2000. “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ 
Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 
13: 168-180.
Shulman, Ahouva. 2001. “Imperative and Second Person Indicative Forms in 
Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 42: 271-287.
Smith, Mark S. 1999. “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main 
Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and 
Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic Hebrew.” Pages 278-332 in Sirach, Scrolls, and 
Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of 
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishna, held at Leiden 
University, 15-17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. 
Leiden: Brill.
Talshir, David. 1986. “על ייחודי תחביר בלשון המקרא המאוחרת [Syntactic 
Patterns in Late Biblical Hebrew].” Pages 1*-8* in Proceedings of the 
Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985. 
Division D, Volume 1: Hebrew and Jewish Languages, Other Languages. 
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Verheij, A. J. C. 1990. Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of 
the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and 
Chronicles. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 28. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Voigt, Rainer. 1990. “The Tense-Aspect System of Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 
1-8 in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 
Jerusalem, August 16-24, 1989. Division D, Volume 1: The Hebrew 
Language, Jewish Languages. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Wagner, Andreas. 1997. Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten 
Testament: Untersuchungen im biblischen Hebräisch an der Nahtstelle 
zwischen Handlungsebene und Grammatik. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die 
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 253. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, Ting. 2003. “The Use of the Infinitive Absolute in the Hebrew 
Bible.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union College.
Warren, Andy. 1998. “Modality, Reference, and Speech Acts in the 
Psalms.” PhD diss., Cambridge University.
Warren, Andrew. 1998. “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal wĕqātal as Key to 
New Testament Readings of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.” Tyndale Bulletin 49: 39-56.
Young, Ian, ed. 2003. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and 
Typology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 
369. London: T & T Clark.
Zewi, Tamar. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) 
Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and 
Ugaritic. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 260. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.


Lastly, here's the details of the references cited by me above:

Andersen, T. David. 2000. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.” 
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13: 1-66.
Cook, John A. 2001. “The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach.” 
Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 14: 117-143.
Cook, John A. 2002. “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A 
Grammaticalization Approach.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Dallaire, Hélène. 2002. “The Syntax of Volitives in Northwest Semitic 
Prose.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union College.
Diehl, Johannes F. 2004. Die Fortführung des Imperativs im Biblischen 
Hebräisch. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 286. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Haspelmath, Martin. Forthcoming. “Coordination.” In Language Typology 
and Syntactic Description, Second Edition. Edited by Timothy Shopen. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 
[http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/coord.pdf].
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. “Pragmatic Disguise in Pronominal-Affix 
Paradigms.” Pages 75-89 in Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection. Edited 
by Georg Bossong and Bernard Comrie. Empirical Approaches to Language 
Typology 9. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. “Pragmatic Skewing in 1 <-> 2 Pronominal 
Combinations in Native American Languages.” International Journal of 
American Linguistics 64: 83-104.
Rogland, Max. 2003. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew. 
Studia Semitica Neerlandica 44. Assen: Van Gorcum.


Regards,
David Kummerow.