An additional feature of Qohelet is the verb system.
Rolf asked to compare Ex 33:7-11.
(the following paste has the teamim included. Use a unicode font
with teamim to see everything properly from the archives or direct
listing. the digest edition will probably print question marks or
boxes.)
snip
Rolf mentioned 'past reference' but he ignored aspect
(and by ignoring aspect the syllogisms about past were irrelevant).
Most Hebraists read this whole passage as marked for an imperfective
aspect that is being used for a habitual situation.
Throughout the passage, wherever something precedes the verb in the clause
one finds a yiqtol, yiqqaH, yetse, yqumu, yered, yedabber, yamish
and in a complementary distribution, everywhere that the verb is first
one finds a ve-qatal:
ve-nata, ve-qara, ve-haya, vehaya, ve-nitsvu, ve-hibbitu, ve-haya, ve`amad,
vedibber, vera'a, veqam, vehishtaHavu, vedibber, veshav,
This is classical biblical Hebrew and is not the way that mishanaic Hebrew
works. Mishanic Hebrew uses haya + benoni (participle) to mark habitual
pasts. haya+benoni already existed in First Temple times to be sure,
but in Second Temple times it remained, while the yiqtol/veqatal symbiosis
diminished in literary while it disappeared in colloquial.
What this means is that the vast majority of Hebraists, and the internal
massoretic tradition, clearly distinguish Ex 33:7-11 from any hint of
mishnaic Hebrew. Qohelet, on the other hand fits mishnaic Hebrew
with a reminiscient hint of classical Hebrew.
'Rolfian Hebrew' (I name it such to distinguish it from masoretic biblical
Hebrew) apparently cannot distinguish these, so he won't be able to use
the same verb test in testing Second Temple Hebrew, especially between
registers that are potentially more colloquial. However, if he were to refine
his stylistic profiling he might be able to add this since the patterns can be
quite extensive (which increases probabilistic reliability).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.