To continue: So in Qumran texts Gen 1's יהי אור ויהי אור is יהי אור ויהיה אור? Really? And what is the Hexapla transcription of this verse?
John Leake ---------------------------------- ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it ---------------------------------- On 15 May 2013, at 07:17, John Leake <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, Rolf, I don't quite get this. Are you saying that there's no trace of > shortened forms of verbs in the consonantal biblical texts of the DSS or that > Qumran Hebrew didn't have these forms? (I'm having difficulty remembering > this and don't have any books with me but thought defective verbs at least > showed consonantal differences in the Masoritic text between > waw-consecutive/waw+jussive and waw+imperfect). > > John Leake > > ---------------------------------- > ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها > He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it > ---------------------------------- > > On 15 May 2013, at 06:52, "Rolf" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Dear Jerry, >> >> I would like to add one point regarding the origin of WAYYIQTOL to the post >> I sent yesterday. >> >> Ken correctly observes that there is no distinction between WATYYIQTOL and >> WEYIQTOL in the DSS. The same is true in the Greek transcriptions of the >> Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla. Thus, the WAYYIQTOL form was not known >> before the middle of the first millennium CE., when the Masoretes pointed >> the Hebrew text. >> >> (Please note that the Palestinian pointings of WEYIQTOLs versus WAYYIQTOLs >> are not always the same as in the MT. For example, in the Palestinian >> manuscript J in Paul Kahle, "Masoreten des Westens Texte und Untersuchungen >> zur Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen," 1930, the six WEYIQTOLs in >> Daniel 11:5 (1), 15(2), 16(2), 17(1) are pointed as WAYYIQTOLs. >> >> So, what was the origin of the WAYYIQTOL form? The Masoretes pointed their >> text on the basis of the recitation of the texts in the synagoges—on the >> basis of accentuation (stress) and tone. The difference between WEYIQTOL and >> WAYYIQTOL is basically one of accentuation. It is natural to put the stress >> differently in narrative texts compared with poetry and prophetic texts. >> Very little Hebrew grammar was known in the days of the Masoretes—it seems >> that they did not even know the three-radical nature of Hebrew words. So, >> the pointing of the Masoretes was based on pragmatics—the recitation in the >> synagogues and not om semantics—a grammatical distinction between different >> forms. But in the Middle Ages, the pragmatic pointing of the Masoretes were >> given a semantic interpretation (cf. Kimhi), and the view of the WAYYIQTOL >> as an independent grammatical form was born. >> >> When semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature are not >> distinguished, the result is confusion. Does anyone know of a single >> grammatical study in any of the ancient Semitic languages, except my >> dissertation, where this distinction is systematically made? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Rolf Furuli >> Stavern >> Norway >> >> _______________________________________________ >> b-hebrew mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
