Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] wayyiqtol

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] wayyiqtol
  • Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:52:21 +0200


Dear Jerry,

I would like to add one point regarding the origin of WAYYIQTOL to the post I
sent yesterday.

Ken correctly observes that there is no distinction between WATYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL in the DSS. The same is true in the Greek transcriptions of the
Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla. Thus, the WAYYIQTOL form was not known
before the middle of the first millennium CE., when the Masoretes pointed the
Hebrew text.

(Please note that the Palestinian pointings of WEYIQTOLs versus WAYYIQTOLs
are not always the same as in the MT. For example, in the Palestinian
manuscript J in Paul Kahle, "Masoreten des Westens Texte und Untersuchungen
zur Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen," 1930, the six WEYIQTOLs in
Daniel 11:5 (1), 15(2), 16(2), 17(1) are pointed as WAYYIQTOLs.

So, what was the origin of the WAYYIQTOL form? The Masoretes pointed their
text on the basis of the recitation of the texts in the synagoges—on the
basis of accentuation (stress) and tone. The difference between WEYIQTOL and
WAYYIQTOL is basically one of accentuation. It is natural to put the stress
differently in narrative texts compared with poetry and prophetic texts. Very
little Hebrew grammar was known in the days of the Masoretes—it seems that
they did not even know the three-radical nature of Hebrew words. So, the
pointing of the Masoretes was based on pragmatics—the recitation in the
synagogues and not om semantics—a grammatical distinction between different
forms. But in the Middle Ages, the pragmatic pointing of the Masoretes were
given a semantic interpretation (cf. Kimhi), and the view of the WAYYIQTOL as
an independent grammatical form was born.

When semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature are not
distinguished, the result is confusion. Does anyone know of a single
grammatical study in any of the ancient Semitic languages, except my
dissertation, where this distinction is systematically made?



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page