Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

I think that the reason for the different verb forms in the masoretic  
text is that Hebrew did not develop linearly and sequentially, but  
rather grew by the confluence of contributions from different  
sources. Remote tribes, isolated cities (before the invention of the,  
homogenizing, mass media), and faraway regions developed all a  
slightly different vocabulary and verbal systems, and when all these  
Hebrew versions came to cross influence the King's language they  
imparted to it, on the one hand, a great redundancy, yet at the same  
time, they endowed it with great beauty and flexibility.

The basic idea of the Hebrew verbal system is to combine the act and  
the actors. The "light" QATAL form is bare (light) and is devoid of  
any personal pronouns for the actors, which are added separately:  
BARA ELOHIYM ET HA$AMAYIM. This form is naturally considered as  
"past", as an honest person naturally talks about what he did, and  
not of what he "will" do. Another invention was the QITEL form with  
the two personal pronouns I and E, for the perpetrator and the  
receiver of the action, inserted into it. Still another invention was  
the HI-QTIL form, with the first pp, HI, put in front of the act, and  
the the second pp, I, inserted between the  letters T and L of the root.

Are these forms inherently different? not al all (I reject the  
"forceful" characterization of of the QITEL form). You may use $ABAR  
and you may use $IBER, and it will mean exactly the same thing. A  
poet may use this redundancy to embellish his poetry or enliven any  
of his highfalutin prose, the same way that any writing is  
embellished by synonyms or near synonyms.

Then came Hebrew, VA-TA-KAM HA-IVR-IT, and took advantage of this  
redundancy to add shades of of meaning to these various constructions  
or BINYANIM. $ALAM is distinct from $ILEM, which is still different  
than HI-$LIM.
YI-QTOL also contains two personal pronouns: YI and O, but by  
agreement this form refers to future action. VA-YI-QTOL is YI-QTOL  
with the added verb VA = BA, 'be'.

Now, reading is not hearing. In reading we may stop and reread, or we  
may stop to ponder the meaning of what is being said. Speech comes in  
an uninterrupted stream that needs to be unambiguously grasped in  
"real time". Also, poetry is intended for the literati, but everyday  
speech is one size fits all. This is why, contrary to the language of  
the bible, the spoken Hebrew of today is fully structured and  
regimented. U NATAN (I hear often HU) and HI) shortened to a mere U  
and I = EE as in 'feet', the speakers possibly unwittingly reverting  
to "proto-Semitic" forms) is 'he gave', I NATN-AH is 'she gave', U I- 
TEN is 'he will give', I TI-TEN is 'she will give', ANIY NOSEA is 'I  
am traveling', AT NOSA-AT is 'you are traveling' (yet I often hear:  
MA ATAH OSE MAXAR? MAXAR ANIY NOSEA LE-TEL-AVIV, with NOSEA in place  
of E-SA).

Pregnant (with n-tuplets) words are also out; no VA-YI-KAX, and no HI- 
$LIYK-A-T-NIY. Instead: AZ U LAKAX, and I HI-$LIYK-AH OTIY.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:56 PM, fred burlingame wrote:

> I am trying to figure out the reason for the two verb forms in the  
> masoretic text.