Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,


snip


I think it is hard for you to grasp my basic point. What I criticize is that 
so many claims regarding Hebrew verbs are made in grammars and textbooks but 
they can not be tested. For example, when I refer to particular passages with 
YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs with past reference and ask why we know that the 
action of the YIQTOL with past reference is progressive (or something else), 
and the same is not the case with the WAYYIQTOLs, the answers are 
interpretations of the particular verses where the YIQTOLs are taken as 
progressive or modal and the WAYYIQTOLs are not. But this begs the question 
why, since progressive interpretations could equally well have been given to 
the WAYYIQTOLs. I would go so far as to say that most of the explanations of 
verbs in Hebrew grammars are circular subjective judgements, they are just 
claims that cannot be tested. This was the situation that really bothered me 
when I came from the natural sciences to Semitics.

While some of your questions are based on assumptions which takes them 
outside my Popperian approach, some are not. One such example is 
grammaticalisation.

Grammaticalisation means that a word form gradually developes into another 
form (e.g., a substantive which becomes a preposition; this may particularly 
be seen in Ge´ez), or that a word form with multiple functions gradually 
looses functions until it only has one function.  A grammaticalization 
process from aspect to tense is absolutely possible. How can we detect a 
grammaticalisation process. The ideal situation would be to have a corpus of 
texts covering a particular time span, where we could point to a word form 
having one particular or multiple functions in the oldest texts, then we 
could follow the gradual change, until we in the yougest texts could see the 
result of the grammaticalisation process.  The ideal situation is not often 
obtainable, but the minimum requirement to speak of a grammaticalisation 
process is to have texts indicating a beginning and other texts indicating 
the process.

I will apply my linguistic theories to this situation with the following 
prediction: If the WAYYIQTOL form in the Tanakh is in a grammaticalisation 
process from aspect to tense, we will expect  to find the WAYYIQTOL (or its 
predecessor) in the older texts as an aspect. Then we expect to find in texts 
of younger and younger age that the WAYYIQTOL looses its aspectual properties 
until it, in the youngest texts is fully grammaticalised as a past tense. 
This prediction can logically only be applied to one language, but to be 
generous, it is granted that it can also encompass the cognate languages. 
Now, according to scientific thinking, if the prediction is fulfilled, what 
have we proved?  Nothing, because there may be other reasons for the pattern 
(cf. the problem of induction)! But we have made the hypothesis of a 
grammaticalisation process more likely. If the prediction is contradicted, 
what have we then showed? We may have falsified the hypothesis, but to be 
sure we must take Duhem´s problem into consideration. Let us apply the 
prediction.

For classical Hebrew we have the WAYYIQTOL form, which is taken as a fully 
grammaticalised past tense, or as being partially grammaticalised (here we 
cannot speak of "tense," since a "tense" is not partially grammaticalised). 
Some would say that the grammaticalisation process started with a short 
preterit prefix form, and others would say the process started with an 
aspect. Our first task is to find the original form. The only candidates in 
classical Hebrew are YIQTOLs with past reference interpreted as preterits  in 
Psalms believed to be old. But how can we know whether these are tenses or 
aspects? It is exactly the same situation as when Joûon-Muraoka says that 
some YIQTOLs with past reference are progressive and others are punctual. 
This is an excellent example of  circularity, and there are no controls! This 
means that the start of a supposed grammaticalisation process cannot be found 
in the Tanakh.

Then one has to seek recourse in the cognate languages. But linguistically 
speaking, this is a very big leap, since we cannot take for granted that any 
form or use in one language is similar to a form or use in another language. 
Two candidates have been used: IPRUS and IPARRAS  in Akkadian and YAQTUL and 
YAQTULU in Ugaritic. The Akkadian connection is very problematic for two 
reasons, 1) the great difference between Akkadian and Hebrew, and 2) the 
difference between the forms is a vowel between first and second radical. 
This means that if the Akkadian contrast was found in Hebrew, we would expect 
a Qal YIQTOL and YEQATTAL or YEQATTEL in Hebrew, but we do not find such a 
contrast. The Hebrew YIQTOL is morphologically similar to the short Akkadian 
form IPRUS, and the same is true in the WAYYIQTOLs as well.  The second 
connection is between Ugritic and Hebrew. Since Ugaritic has only three 
vowels expressed by three different forms of aleph, any possible difference 
between prefix forms can only be seen in roots with final aleph. These are 
few, and there is no way to know with certainty that there are two prefix 
forms, one YAQTUL and another YAQTULU. The prefix forms are used with both 
past and future reference, and apparently as modals as well. The circularity 
in the interpretation of Ugaritic verbs where a short preterit is postulated 
is even greater than in Hebrew, if that is possible, since vowels are lacking.

There are also other very important problems. If we could identify a possible 
predecessor of WAYYIQTOL in Ugaritic, how could we know whether this form was 
a preterit, a perfective or an imperfective aspect, since all three can have 
past reference.  Only circular answers are possible. The same is true in the 
Tanakh itself, for how can we know that a WAYYIQTOL is a partly 
grammaticalised past tense, or a fully grammaticalised past tense, or a 
perfective or an imperfective aspect just by looking at one particular form 
in its context?  But back to the prediction. Do we see any pattern in the 
books of the Tanakh?. We can to some extent identify the younger books, but 
the dating of the other books by linguisticAL means (the only ones possible) 
are fraught with problems. What is perfectly clear, however, is that it is 
not possible to say that the meaning of WAYYIQTOL in the younger books is 
different from the meaning in the other books. Some, such as Kutcher, has 
argued that the frequency of WAYYIQTOL is lower in the younger books, but a 
statistical test of this in my dissertation showed that this was not the 
case. Clearly, the prediction above has not been fulfilled. 

 
Any approach to the verbal system of a dead language must entail subjective 
judgements. But in order to reduce these and to make testable results, I 
havechosen todealwith the text and not with lofty hypotheses regarding what 
may have happened in the past. this appraoch deals with semantic meaning, and 
the functions of the verbs are only tools that are used in order to isolate 
the semantic meaning. At the outset this is a very simple approach. A general 
prediction regarding tense can be: If one or more of the Hebrew conjugations 
code for tense, we will expect that verbs with one morphology refers to the 
past or to the future and not that all the conjugations can have past, 
present, and future reference. This prediction is not fulfilled, and my 
conclusion is that tense is not grammticalised in Hebrew. It is interesting 
that Waltke and O´Connor in principle accepts my prediction. The book says 
(p. 460):

"How can forms each of which "represent" all three English major tenses have 
a primarily temporal value?"

And as mentioned above, there are not clear data for a grammaticalisation 
process. As already mentioned, exceptions that can be linguistically 
explained are accepted, but not exceptions with ad hoc explanations. In the 
discussion of exceptions  the question of multifunctionality will have a 
place.



Questions:

1. Explain how your methodology is able to operate in areas of 
incomplete grammaticalisation? Explain how it is able to explain the 
movement from an aspectual verb to a tense verb? How is it able to 
explain when a verb is, say, only partly grammaticalised as a tense? (Do 
you see the problem here? Once a verb has begun to grammaticalise as a 
tense, it is no longer wholly aspectual and it is not yet wholly tense. 
Hence there are two uses, with some correspondence between the two, eg 
past-perfective, future-imperfactive, etc. However, there will be some 
used where there will no longer be overlap, eg past-imperfective, 
future-perfective, etc. So in this situation I am unable to see how a 
methodology of semantic uncancellability is able to operate, ie the 
movement of grammaticalisation seems to be to necessarily involve 
semantic cancellability and bleaching.)

2. Explain how your methodology is able to operate in areas of 
linguistic multifunctionality? Eg, nouns, verbs, etc? Explain how it is 
able to operate when there is no intrinsic similarity between the two uses?

3. Explain how your methodology is able to operate if "linguistic 
convention" does not have any impact on "semantic meaning"? Actually, 
you don't have to explain this one as it is already answered by your 
dissertation: you have to redefine aspect to fit all the exceptions! You 
know, you could have made an hypothesis about tense and tried to prove 
or disprove that - and would have had to arrive, I strongly suspect, at 
a redefinition of tense!


I will
> quickly
> add that in the examples with non-past tense we must be open for textual
> corruption, exceptions, special contexts, special conventions in different
> genres, diachronic questions, and that a language is a living medium 
> etc. But these issues should be studied in a
> scientific way, and the examples should not be brushed away by the argument
> that languge is fuzzy, or the WAYYIQTOL is not yet fully grammaticalized as
> apast tense. This prediction was a basic tool for my thesis of 1995. The 
> NWT had caused me to be critical towards the modern theories of WAYYIQTOL, 
> but its
> grammatical theory did not influence me at all, since this was a study of
> text, of all the WAYYIQTOLs of the Tanakh on the basis of the falsification
> principle. Grammatical theories therefore were unnecessary.


Rolf, I have not attempted to brush them aside. Regarding qatal, I have 
sought to give an indication how a tense-prominent position is not 
incompatible with non-past uses. Time and again, I have sought to 
interact with your ideas, whereas I see exceedingly little from you. You 
brush my arguments aside by saying I have brushed things aside! Yet you 
are doing this repeatedly yourself! Again, you have failed to interact 
with what I have said. Further, I sought to question your methodology in 
that I have doubts, as Peter raised also, as to whether it is able to

[snip]




Regards,
David Kummerow.
_______________________________________________


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Thu Mar 22 12:22:51 2007
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB564C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:22:51 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [68.166.204.243] (helo=[192.168.1.33])
        by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1HUQ3v-0001WI-Ep
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:22:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4602AD50.1090908 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:22:40 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: 
<32691063.1174573473538.JavaMail.root AT mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: 
<32691063.1174573473538.JavaMail.root AT mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c260958dd3b0037c3b70db7a1ef58a4e01dc3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.204.243
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Mis(.)rayim
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, 22 Mar 2007 16:22:51 -0000

Dear list,

here is an interesting quote that rehashes some of
wwhat has been said but gives another theory about
Mis(.)rayim:
http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/why_egypt.html

The question is often asked "Why is it called
Egypt?" This question can best be answered
correctly by first remembering that the Ancient
Egyptian language is NOT a dead language. It not
only survives as Coptic Egyptian, but also in
related languages such as Wolof (Senegal) and
Yoruba (Nigeria). If this fact is kept in mind,
one cannot drift into spurious speculations.

Kemet: The Original Name of Egypt

The oldest, official name for Egypt, by the
Ancient Egyptians themselves, is Kmt (Keme) or
Black. The contemporary Egyptian (Coptic) words
for Egypt are (depending on the particular
dialect): Kame, Keme, Kimi, and Kheme - all of
which mean Black.  Also in Coptic Egyptian we
have, kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom or "to be black."
The Ancient Egyptians referred to themselves as
Kmtjw (Kemetu) and Kmmw (Kmemu) or Black people
(In contemporary Egyptian: Kmemou=Black people).
In Wolof, Khem means "burnt to black."

"Egypt": Greek Corruptions

The Greeks corrupted an Ancient Egyptian name for
Memphis - Ht-Ki-Pth (hay-gip-Toh), "The Temple of
Ptoh's Essence," to Aigyptos.  Keeping in mind
that the Greeks had a convention of adding an 's'
to Ancient Egyptian proper nouns:
   Osiri  (Usiri in contemporary Egyptian) > Osiris
   Isi  (Ese in contemporary Egyptian) > Isis
   Pth(Toh) > Tos

"Misr" and "Mizraim": Semitic Corruptions

British Egyptologist E.A.W. Budge was one of the
first to remark that "The name Mizraim may have
been given Egypt (by foreigners) in respect of its
double wall."
The name Misr is indeed a Semiticized form of
Ancient Egyptian:
   Medjr = walled district
   Medjre = tower, fortress
These Ancient Egyptian words became Meetsrayeem
(Egypt) and Meetsree (Egyptian) in Hebrew, and in
Arabic; Misr and Masri respectively. It is the
same as Westerners calling China, "China," after
the original Qin dynasty emperor ("Tschina" in
Indo-European).  The Chinese, however, call their
country Zhongguo or 'the Middle Kingdom.'

Yours,
Harold Holmyard