Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hithpael functions (was Question for Rolf on the JWoutlook on the Hebrew)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hithpael functions (was Question for Rolf on the JWoutlook on the Hebrew)
  • Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:44:26 -0400

Rolf,

I am truly all agog about this sasgonic business of the "paragogic NUN". This is linguistics at its best. I remember that at about age eight it first occurred to me ( I admit that it could have been the idea of my good friend Gilly) that the "suffix" UN as in YAD(UN in Deuteronmy 8:3, is but the curtailed personal pronoun HUN, which is but a slight variant of HEN, which is but a slight variant of HIN. I really wanted to ask the teacher why the bible did not use the obvious YAD(HEM, but the other boys started to throw crumpled paper balls at me and I became distracted.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 24, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:

Dear Karl,

See my comments below.

snip

Regarding the questions, everybody is unanimous these days that
paragogic nun is only attached to the long prefix verb and ditto for the
third-person pronouns augmented with nun. I think the same could be said
about the status of the other features diagnostic of the short prefix
verb vis-a-vis the long prefix verb.

Thanks. I have noticed the paragogic nun, but as it has minimal affect
on lexicography, if any, I have not studied its distribution. But in
so far that it is a sign of grammaticalization, and as far as it has
been described to me, Rolf's dissertation is about grammaticalization,
I agree that he should at least address the question of the paragogic
nun, either why it is not important or what is his answer to it.

RF
First I suggest that you read the discussion of Waltke/O´Connor regarding
NUN paragogicum. The book shows correctly that the NUN is a remnant of
something, and that
its previous and present significance is an open question. There may also be
a NUN paragogicum in a few suffix forms (Deuteronmy 8;
:3,16; Isaiah 26:16), but that does not matter for my argument.
Moreover, Waltke/O´Connor (p. 516) lists 4 WAYYIQTOLs with paragogic NUN.

Two of the reasons why I see no significance in paragogic NUN in connection
with the question regarding the the number and meaning of the conjugations
in classical Hebrew are , 1) Dave´s assumptions needed to give the
occurrence of paragogic NUN significance, and 2) the problem of induction.

As for 1): It seems to me that Dave assumes that Hebrew has two different
prefix conjugations or at least remnants of such, one long and the other
short, and the short one is the basis for the WAYYIQTOLs. Since paragogic
NUN is only attached to the long prefix form, it distinguishes this long
form from the short form. If I have understood Dave correctly, I dispute
this premise. I see that some verbs in Hebrew are short or apocopated, but
that may be for phonological or other reasons. And here again we have the
need for ascrupulous distinction between semantics and pragmatics. In order
to demonstrate the existence of a short and a long prefix form by pointing
to normal and to short/apocopated prefix forms, one has to exclude all other
reasons for the shortness/apocopation than that they belong to two separate
conjugations. Thus, the argument "paragogic NUN is only attached to the long
prefix verb, therefore it distinguishes the long prefix verb from the short
one" is completely circular as long as the existence of long and short forms
has not been proven.

As for 2): The problem of induction tells us that confirmatory data do not
prove anything. This is so since the existence of the data could have been
caused by a host of different factors. Scientific progress is generally
caused by falsification and not by confirmation. Moreover, the number of the
300 examples of paragogic NUN is very small. Even the 6,900 cases, which,
according to Hoftijzer *could* have the ending, do not add much,
because of the uncertainty of "could".

I did not neglect the paragogic NUN in my study, but I did not see any
reason to discuss it in my disertation, since
it has no bearing at all on its principal questions.

...
Regards,
David Kummerow.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page