Dear John, There are shortened examples of prefix forms with prefixed WAW in the DSS, but apocopation is not an absolute distinction mark between WEYIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs. Accoring to my analysis, 6.2% of the WEYIQTOLs are apocopated, and 27.0% of the WAYYIQTOLs are apocopated (of these 13.8% are lamed he verbs where apocopation is natural) as well. Apocopation relates to the stem, the grammatical person, and to the form of the text (narrative versus poetry and prophecy). In a terse or staccato recitation of narrative texts, it is natural that the stress is thrown back towards the WAW, and the final consonant, which is not stressed, is lost. Again we are speaking of pragmatics and not semantics.
Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Onsdag 15. Mai 2013 08:17 CEST skrev John Leake <[email protected]>: > 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
