Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> wyhy is not a yiqtol. That would have been (w) yhyh
>
>
> > Have you considered that YHYH in over 400 times it is used is never found
> > with a prefixed W-?
>
> That is strong support for the thesis that wyhy is special and different
> from yhyh. Of course, when you check other 'lamed-yod' verbs
> (a.k.a. [graphic] 'lamed-h'), you will not find 100% consistency.
>

That is not the only inconsistency, which is why I think that a minority of
verbs originally had two letter roots. Some when listed in dictionaries
added a closing heh, some an infixed waw or yod, some doubled ayin. Then
there are some just irregular verbs, among them HYH (as in most other
languages).

>
> > Further, when we look at the about 50 times YHY is used without a
> prefixed
> > W-, how is its meaning different from YHYH?
>
> --it's more modal-- Gen 1 yhy or, . . . yhy mabdiyl . . .
>
> I did not take time to compare all of the 400+ YHYH verbs and compare them
with all the ca. 50 YHY verbs (without prefixed L-), but a spot check of
some looked at randomly seems to indicate that both encode for the same
meanings and modalities. So when should one write one and not the other?

>
> > My “speculation” is not just a shot in the dark, rather it is based on
> > trying to read the text as aspectual and finding that that action often
> > required mental gymnastics that often seem strange.
>
> Good. I was actually supporting you on that point.
>
>
> > I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Your response indicates that
> you
> > are basing it on the MT points, which have been shown to be
> untrustworthy,
> > whereas my question was based on the MT consonantal text.
>
> excuse me, but wyqtl [hif`il]


Is that a hiphil? Which verses?


> versus yqtyl [hif`il] was consonantally based.
>
> And one can certainly add the MT vocalizations as evidence. They are
> not "untrustworthy" and to be thrown out 100%.
>

No, not to be thrown out 100%, but they are to be questioned 100%, and those
that fail thrown out. And this is just as concerns meaning, not even trying
to claim that they preserve the pronunciation from the Biblical era.


> If you want to judge them, they are to be weighed, and require comparative
> Semitics.


No, I find that they fail often enough as far as meaning is concerned even
within the MT system, something that comparative linguistics often fails to
catch. Some of that is due to poor lexicography causing misunderstandings
and attempts to correct the record through kethib/qere additions, some to
copyist errors, some through trying to read the text according to rules
derived from other languages (e.g. Mishnaic Hebrew), etc.

Frankly, the MT is one of the most remarkable documents of
> antiquity, it's a pity that you do not seem to appreciate it, based on an
> occasional disagreement in reading. Actually, I would expand on that last
> statement, the MT --
> is probably the most remarkable recording of all ancient documents.
>
> I agree with that, as far as the consonantal text is concerned.

>
>
> > How can one make a definitive statement that
> > yiqtol encodes for aspect, imperfective aspect, and qatal encodes for
> > perfective aspect? And wayiqtol for perfective aspect?
>
> By careful analysis of all the data. Or by learning the language from
> the language community.
>

Unfortunately, the language community died out some two and a half millennia
ago, so all we have left is one book and a few tiny documents from that era.

There seems to be some disconnect between your response to my questioning
Rolf’s conclusions above where you seem to agree with me that a statistical
analysis would indicate that the conjugations do not code for aspect, and
your response here. Do you care to elucidate?


> Either way, they both eventually lead to the same result
> when done well.
>
> Is not the first step of doing well reading the complete Tanakh through
cover to cover at least ten times, so one can become at least partially
familiar with the whole text?

>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

On another issue, I threw out the idea that the qatal encodes for primary
(usually stating a fact) with the yiqtol encoding for secondary from a
primary, usually in narration indicating continuation of a thought except
when modified by modalities (usually optative, imperative or subjunctive):
in passages like Proverbs 31:10–31 that pattern seems to jump out at the
reader, but in the first chapters of Genesis (which I am reading again) it
is not so clear, in fact seems rather muddy at times. Is it bringing up
ideas I had never considered before? Are there further considerations to
consider?

Karl W. Randolph.