There are many properties of Hebrew verbs where a grammaticalisation process
cannot be seen because of lack of vowels, as you say. In these cases we
cannot assume that a grammaticalisation process has occurred, even though we
see such processes in other languages. For example, we cannot exclude the
possibility that at some point of time the language (verbs, possible case
endings etc) of the older parts of the Tanakh were adjusted to the language
of that time. So we cannot presume grammaticalisation, we must demonstrate
it.
I am open for the possibility that the same verb form could and can be used
with different senses. In Akkadian, for example, it is the short IPRUS, which
often
refer to the past, that is used in the wish-form precative. And we have a
similar
sitution in Ugaritic. But the point I very often have stressed is that in
order to use
such multiple functions in a grammatical theory, we must demonstrate its
existence,
not just assume it. That is the reason why I refuse to deal with concepts
such as
Proto-Semitic or Proto-Hebrew, and that I challenge those who believe that the
antecedent of WAYYIQTOL is an old short preterit, to prove it. I agree with
you
that there are remnants in the Hebrew of the Tanakh of stems that earlier were
used; there is, for example just a single verb in the causative-reflexive
stem.
As for Masoretic pointing, I believe it accurately represents the vowels that
were
used at the end of the first millennium B.C.E. (with a few exceptions), and I
will
neither question the pointing, nor the voclization without concrete evidence.
I am also positive to the accuracy of the consonantal text of the Masoretes.
For example, the great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) is very close to the
Masoretic Isaiah,
and even though there are greater variations in some DSS, I think a good case
can
be made for the existence of a consonant text close to the Masoretic text
around
the beginning ofthe first millennium BCE.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.