Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Dave,

I know you as a fine Hebrew scholar, and I also know that you have done much 
work on the DSS. This thread was supposed to be descriptive and not 
argumentative—we were asked to outline our positions on WAYYIQTOL. But when 
you use the words "a gross misstatement," I think I am entitled to clear up 
the issue.

In scholarly studies it is very important not to assume anything before we 
start. So, we cannot ASSUME that a grammatical form WAYYIQTOL existed in BCE. 
But we must look at the writings we have from BCE, and they are the DSS. What 
do a morphological study of the DSS reveal? About 500 prefix forms with 
prefixed WAW. These forms are not geminated and the vowel patah is not 
represented by the maters lexiones. This justifies my  statement that "the 
WAYYIQTOL form was not known in the DSS"—only YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW. The 
data I presented from Origen and the Samaritan Penbtateuch justify my claim 
that "the WAYYIQTOL was not known before the middle of the first millennium 
CE." The only way to show that this is "a gross misstatement" is to refer to 
manuscripts where the WAYYIQTOL is found. This is a challenge to you.

You  refer to Mishnaic Hebrew,  to long and short forms and to irregular 
verbs. But these data can be interpreted in different ways,  and they prove 
nothing regarding the existence of a grammatical WAYYIQTOL form.  As far as 
the data are concerned, they show that the  WAYYIQTOL form did not existe 
before the middle of the first millennium CE. This is not conjecture, it is 
not an argument, but it is an OBSERVATION. And please, do not mix semantic 
meaning with conversational pragmatic implicature.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Onsdag 15. Mai 2013 17:01 CEST skrev Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>:

> >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.
>
> This is such a huge leap in logic I don't know where to begin. It's clear
> that by the time of the DSS the Wayyiqtol had fallen out of use. The
> progression into tense-based Mishnaic Hebrew makes that clear. But to jump
> from that to the idea that "the WAYYIQTOL form was *not known* before the
> middle of the first millennium CE" simply doesn't follow. We don't have any
> commentaries or grammars of Hebrew from that time or before, that's all.
> The DSS people were more focused on theology and praxis than on
> linguistics, so they didn't say anything about the structure of their
> language. But in the case of the Hebrew Bible, we have plenty of contextual
> and formal hints in the text that the form the Masoretes punctuated as
> wayyiqtol was, in fact, different in some way from the simple weyiqtol, so
> trying to claim it was "not known" is a gross misstatement. What he means
> is, we didn't have a visual (written) representation of the form before
> that. But the truth is, even that is not accurate, because the whole theory
> about long vs. short forms grew out of observation of the way some
> irregular verbs behave in the different stems.
>
> To John: Rolf has presented his novel idea here before, and I think it's
> safe to say it hasn't caught on. He denies that the wayyiqtol is a distinct
> form and then proceeds accordingly. But even without the Masoretic points,
> I think it's safe to say that the wayyiqtol is one of the most solidly
> established verb forms in the HB, which renders the theory moot.
>
> George, I'd like to hear more about your idea, either on or off list (on
> would be better so everybody can benefit, but I'll take whatever I can
> get!).
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Washburn
>
> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
>
> Now available: a novel about King Josiah!