From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
Subject: status of forms yiqtolun, etc.?
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:20:17 -0500 (EST)
got a bit of a bee in my bonnet (hat, not trunk of the car). all the
grammars **assume** that the modern hebrew forms are basic, period.
hence when looking at the nonpast (aka imperfect), we're supposed to
teach the form yiqtlu 3mp as *basic*, period.
but look at the grammar, how the forms actually work, and the apparent
free variation with forms in -n (paragogic nun: yeah, right, extra n
for no apparent reason: gotta love our little benighted field).
if you look at the Tiberian reading of Standard Biblical Hebrew, I
think you must conclude the following:
the basic indicative *form* is yiqtolun. contextual form yiqtlun is a
**reduction**; absence of n is **functional**.
that's what I want to propose. I also think there are some interesting
correlations with that -n that are highly suggestive. I want to frame
it as a hypothesis for further investigation.
what do you think about the suggestion? in other words, perhaps not
paragogic in any way, really. semantically/functionally "basic" vs
zero-form, inherent modality. there are a number of predictions, but I
don't want to bore you. I would use the samuel-kings corpus to test.
cheers
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vincent DeCaen, Ph.D. <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/intro.html
c/o Deparment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, M5S 1A1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through
rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived.
--Bertrand Russell
status of forms yiqtolun, etc.?,
Vincent DeCaen, 11/25/1998