Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Uri:

Interesting, but it got a bit long. Especially after I found I disagree with
some of his central claims.

The first claim with which I disagree, is that the meaning of a verbal
inflection is to be found by following its history. Well, we don’t have a
history of Hebrew, which leads to another disagreement, namely that cognate
languages will provide the missing historical key to its meaning. Rather, my
claim is that we need to look at how the verb is used in the text itself (I
get the impression that the author is more at home reading grammars and
comparative linguistics than the text itself).

I also think he spent too much effort and time trying to apply concepts from
Western languages, which is why he had so much trouble understanding the
function of the yiqtol.

One thing this group has done for me is to make me become much more
systematic in my evaluation of the Hebrew language. Previously, after I
realized that the grammars that I had cut my teeth on did not fit what I
read, I let the language flow over me as I read for meaning. I knew what
sounded right, but couldn’t explain why. The reason I rejected the so called
Jehoash inscription was because it sounded wrong from beginning to end, but
I was unable to describe why it sounds wrong (still have trouble). So I
enjoy getting the opportunity to look at articles like this, even when I
disagree with them. Thanks for the link.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> JHS- New Article: Andrason, The Panchronic Yiqtol
>
> ..... the following contribution
> in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 10: Article 10 (2010)
>
> Alexander Andrason, The Panchronic Yiqtol: Functionally Consistent and
> Cognitively Plausible
>
> Abstract:
>
> This article demonstrates that applying the panchronic methodology (based
> on
> the grammaticalization and path theories as well as on principles of
> cognitive linguistics) all apparently heterogeneous meanings provided by
> the
> BH yiqtol can be explained as manifestations of a consistent phenomenon.
> The
> yiqtol may be defined as portions of the imperfective and modal ability
> paths which jointly derive from a single lexically transparent and
> cognitively plausible input, a reduplicated participle as reconstructed for
> the PS *yaqattal. The author shows that the BH construction is a direct
> functional descendent of the PS *yaqattal which, after having suffered
> several analogical processes, was superficially modified to a shape based
> on
> the *yaqtul-u finally yielding the BH yiqtol.
>
> To access the article directly please go to
> http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_138.pdf
>
>     [ please note the assumed  PS *yaqattal with the doubling of the medial
> letter --   UH]
>
>   Uri Hurwitz                       Wilmington, VT
>
>