Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

hi fred,

unfortunately my historical lab is very crude and the result of the lab test 
is inconclusive. but they do come up with
some helpful data. namely,

1. i believe the mesha stone is not exactly what you would coin masoretic 
era. it uses exactly the same rule of
varying these two forms in a single sentence (sorry i do not have the fonts):

WANKY MLKTY AXRY ABY WA'AS HBMT...

so, variation of two tenses in a sentence (here, with two past tenses)  
preceded the masoret by many centuries, 
and was not confined to hebrew tradition.  probably other examples can be 
found.

2.  i am almost sure that by the roman era the tense forms with initial W- 
were not in hebrew use any more. 
 i can only bring as examples, from memory,  the HAGADAH, SIDUR  and talmudic 
hebrew (PIRKEI AVOT?), 
but i dont know much when exactly each one of them was written. but i am sure 
this claim can be checked, 
maybe an expert among b-hebrew community could help.

if 1-2 are correct, there are only two possible conclusions here: either the 
masoret scribes were copying 
older text, as faithfully as they could (remember, we are speaking about 22 
letters, no nikud!) and so the 
tissue is benign; or they were fabricating legends in an old style copied 
from some old script they happened 
to possess, and the tissue is malignant.

so, it's still a "maybe"!

what to do? well, if the pacient is on the table,  i'd choose the first 
option. reason: it is not easy to 
fabricate perfectly a dialect in which you are not fluent.

with 10 minutes to go, i'd page a more qualified surgeon.

nir cohen

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:19:58 -0600, fred burlingame wrote
> Hello Nir;
>  
> I'm confident you're well qualified to opine on this precise and narrow 
> issue.
>  
> I am not looking for hidden meanings or messages.
>  
> I understand that today the following simple rule applies to persons 
> employing the hebrew language as an everyday means of communication:
>  
> a. the yiqtol verb form instructs the future tense;
>  
> b. the qatal verb form instructs the past tense.
>  
> The only question I have: what did those two verb forms instruct in the 
> masoretic text?
>  
> It all seems so simple; when the patient is on the operating table, and the 
> surgery team has dispatched a tissue sample to pathology for examination, a 
> simple report is expected and inevitably produced, promptly, to wit: 
>  
> a. the tissue sample is malignant;
>  
> b. the tissue sample is not malignant.
>  
>  The path lab never delivers the answer .... "maybe" to the patient opened 
> up; and the waiting surgery team.
>  
> Likewise, it seems that beyond all else that has and can be said about 
> these two verb forms, the actual usage of the forms in the masoretic text 
> is susceptible of a determination as to whether they instruct the past or 
> future tense. And if not, what is the purpose of having two forms?
>  
> regards,
>  
> fred burlingame
>