...If I understand this correctly, and to restate it in terms more like Hebraists are used to, you are suggesting that the QATAL form in Hebrew derives from some kind of participle, with subject suffixes, with a perfective meaning. Apart from this, the distinction between perfective and imperfective was more one or word order, with WAYYIQTOL X as perfective and WE-X YIQTOL as imperfective. WE-X QATAL then came in as an alternative perfective form, and later WEYIQTOL X as imperfective by some kind of analogy. This kind of development process makes reasonable sense. But I don't quite understand what happened to YAQATTUL relative to YAQTUL: did they merge, or is one the ancestor of YIQTOL (not apocopated) and the other of WAYYIQTOL (mostly apocopated when this is possible)?
I would like to suggest a different theory. In the article on
Afroasiatic in the
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, Huehnergard
suggests that in West Semitic, the perfective adjective of the Proto Semitic
replaced the inherited Semitic form yaqtVl perfective form (contrasted
with the inherited Semitic form yaqattVl form). Following the same lines
of argument as suggested by Goerwitz for noun vs verbal pausal forms, we
might suggest the following development:
1) the perfective adjective replaced the perfective verb in sentences of the
form: *bayta wathibna ("we lived in a house") from the previous: bayta
yawthVb. this did not occur in sentences of the form: wayawthVb bayta
("and he lived in a house") because adjectives were not used as often at
the beginning of the word.
2) this created a situation in which yawthVb and yawaththVb at the middle
of the sentence were confused or reanalyzed as prefix-verbs contrasted
with "suffix verbs" which developed from the perfective adjective.
3) by analogy, the waw in such cases was analyzed as a waw conversive
and so applied to the adjective
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.