To: "'Rolf Furuli'" <furuli AT online.no>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 13:52:00 -0700
Shalom Rolf,
I looked at the section you mentioned and saw a few WEYIQTOLs but didn't
find a WAYYIQTOL; I must have missed it. Can you give a chapter/verse
please?
In any event, are you saying that a word like vaYAkom (with kamatz katan as
the last vowel) is a form of yaKOM (with holam as the last syllable) or
yaKUM (with kubutz or shuruk as the last syllable) to which VAV was added?
If so, I agree and I believe this is the accepted explanation of these
forms. This is also an example of a HOLAM turning into Kamatz Katan or,
better yet, an earlier SHURUK or KUBUTZ that later (sometimes) into Holam
(in imperfect verbs) or into kamatz katan (when the VAV was added and the
accentuation changed). Do you agree with this?
I'm interested in the point about 2 and 4 conjunctions. Can you please
elaborate on this?
Thanks and best.
********************
Rivka
The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading
YODAN Publishing
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:47 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan
Dear Rivka,
Your words below are well taken. I would like to add one point, namely, that
the Yisraeli pointing does not agree with the MT as to which forms are
WAYYIQTOLs and which are WEYIQTOLs.
P. Kahle (1930) "Masoretens des Westens Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen" published several manuscripts
with Yisraeli pointing. In his manuscript "J," which contains 82 verses
(Daniel 9:24-12:13), there are 50 prefix forms with prefixed WAW. Of these,
40 are not pointed, and thus are not comparable to MT. Of the pointed
examples, we find 3 which are pointed as WEYIQTOLS both in J and in MT, 1 is
pointed as WAYYIQTOL both in J and in MT, but 6, which occur in future
settings, are pointed as WEYIQTOLs in MT and as WAYYIQTOLs in J. This means
that in this manuscript 60% of the forms are pointed differently from the
MT, and that number is significant.
For your information: on the basis of a study of all the verbs of MT I argue
that WAYYIQTOL is nothing but a YIQTOL with the conjunction WAW prefixed,
and that classical Hebrew has just two conjugations and not four.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "YODAN" <yodanco AT yodanco.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>