Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Michael,

There is absolutely no evidence i favor of a Canaanite influence on Hebrew 
verbs. But because the Canaanite languages and Hebrew are cognate languages, 
it is not surprising that there are similarities.  The supposed difference 
between an old supposed YAQTUL form versus a YAQTUTU  form is unclear. For 
example, in Ugaritic there are no vowels, but ALEPH is written in three ways, 
as )A, )I, and )U. Graphic evidence of the vowel U requires a final ALEPH, 
which is rare.

The KIRTA (KERET) account in Ugaritic first tells of detailed events that 
will happen in the future, then there is a description of exactly the same 
events with past reference—the events had happened. Interestingly, the same 
verbs and verb forms are used in both accounts, first with future reference 
and then with past reference. We find similar situations in other Ugaritic 
accounts. Thus, if there is a similarity between Ugaritic and Hebrew, it must 
be that the prefix form (in Hebrew as YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL) can be 
used both with past and future reference.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Torsdag 26. September 2013 04:27 CEST skrev Michael Abernathy 
<mabernathy AT conwaycorp.net>:

> I don't want to stir this pot but I do have a question.  If the Hebrew
> prefix form derived from or was influenced by the Canaanite language 
> would we have any clue in a unpointed Hebrew text as to whether a verb
> would be heard as either a /yaqtulu/ or /yaqtul? /I can't help thinking
> that the original pronunciation may have made the use clearer.
> Sincerely,
> Michael Abernathy