Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] qatal-wayiqtol
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:01:49 -0500
I think that the reason for the different verb forms in the masoretic
text is that Hebrew did not develop linearly and sequentially, but
rather grew by the confluence of contributions from different
sources. Remote tribes, isolated cities (before the invention of the,
homogenizing, mass media), and faraway regions developed all a
slightly different vocabulary and verbal systems, and when all these
Hebrew versions came to cross influence the King's language they
imparted to it, on the one hand, a great redundancy, yet at the same
time, they endowed it with great beauty and flexibility.
The basic idea of the Hebrew verbal system is to combine the act and
the actors. The "light" QATAL form is bare (light) and is devoid of
any personal pronouns for the actors, which are added separately:
BARA ELOHIYM ET HA$AMAYIM. This form is naturally considered as
"past", as an honest person naturally talks about what he did, and
not of what he "will" do. Another invention was the QITEL form with
the two personal pronouns I and E, for the perpetrator and the
receiver of the action, inserted into it. Still another invention was
the HI-QTIL form, with the first pp, HI, put in front of the act, and
the the second pp, I, inserted between the letters T and L of the root.
Are these forms inherently different? not al all (I reject the
"forceful" characterization of of the QITEL form). You may use $ABAR
and you may use $IBER, and it will mean exactly the same thing. A
poet may use this redundancy to embellish his poetry or enliven any
of his highfalutin prose, the same way that any writing is
embellished by synonyms or near synonyms.
Then came Hebrew, VA-TA-KAM HA-IVR-IT, and took advantage of this
redundancy to add shades of of meaning to these various constructions
or BINYANIM. $ALAM is distinct from $ILEM, which is still different
than HI-$LIM.
YI-QTOL also contains two personal pronouns: YI and O, but by
agreement this form refers to future action. VA-YI-QTOL is YI-QTOL
with the added verb VA = BA, 'be'.
Now, reading is not hearing. In reading we may stop and reread, or we
may stop to ponder the meaning of what is being said. Speech comes in
an uninterrupted stream that needs to be unambiguously grasped in
"real time". Also, poetry is intended for the literati, but everyday
speech is one size fits all. This is why, contrary to the language of
the bible, the spoken Hebrew of today is fully structured and
regimented. U NATAN (I hear often HU) and HI) shortened to a mere U
and I = EE as in 'feet', the speakers possibly unwittingly reverting
to "proto-Semitic" forms) is 'he gave', I NATN-AH is 'she gave', U I-
TEN is 'he will give', I TI-TEN is 'she will give', ANIY NOSEA is 'I
am traveling', AT NOSA-AT is 'you are traveling' (yet I often hear:
MA ATAH OSE MAXAR? MAXAR ANIY NOSEA LE-TEL-AVIV, with NOSEA in place
of E-SA).
Pregnant (with n-tuplets) words are also out; no VA-YI-KAX, and no HI-
$LIYK-A-T-NIY. Instead: AZ U LAKAX, and I HI-$LIYK-AH OTIY.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:56 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
I am trying to figure out the reason for the two verb forms in the
masoretic text.