Dear David,Rolf, thank you for addressing my arguments, but no thanks for attributing them to David. Yes, you have a point that there is some circularity in my method in that I rely on interpretations of certain verbs as jussive which probably partly depend on the Masoretic vocalisation. Nevertheless, if the unpointed text can be read at all it must be possible to distinguish modal and non-modal verb forms at least in most cases. So see below.
Please note that I do not appeal to any uncancellable principle when I claim
that it is impossible to distinguish between WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in
unpointed texts. And further, when someone appeals to semantics in this
connection, this person is arguing in a circle. Exactly the same is true
when the concept "jussive" is introduced. What you do when you assess an
unpointed text in the light of semantics, or when you use grammatical
concepts such as "jussive", you make an interpretation of the grammar of the
vocalised Masoretic text, and then you extrapolate this interpretation into
the unpointed text. You can hardly find a better example of circularity.
Let me repeat this for the third time: You can only answer the questionThank you for clarifying this principle. Let me address the issue again on the basis of this principle. But we will have to modify the principle because it is impossible to distinguish between phonologically and semantically conditioned distinctions of form "by morphology and morphology alone".
regarding how many conjugations we can distinguish in an unvocalised text by
morphology and morphology alone. In order to get rid of any circular
thoughts in our mind when we approach an unpointed text, we must forget
everything we think we know about Hebrew grammar and just look at the
consonants of this text. Is this elementary principle really so difficult to
understand?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.