My problem, Rolf, with the your hypothesis (quite believable for DSS sectarian compositions) is that the non-existence of the form says nothing about the earlier state of the language. Your data (thanks for your very generously detailed postings, BTW, that I hope to follow up when I get to a library) does seem to ahow at the least that the some apocopated forms were still being used in the DSS materials. Now, this might be an attempt to write in a Biblical register and might not regmflect tye every day Hebrew. Did you class your data by literary style? Or am I misreading the DSS materials?
Still, if the DSS Biblical materials tend to display the same orthography as the Massoritic, and we see similar features in Ugaritic (loss of final mim - ויקטל where the usual prefix conjunction has יקטלם suggestibg */wa-yaqtulū/ and */yaqtulūm/ respectively) then we are surely entitled to draw the conclusion that the jussive form at least as being certain to a tolerable standard. But of course I don't know the Ugaritic materials at all, really. You've taught Ugaritic. Is this something near what the evidence shows? 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 19:18, "Rolf" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Dave, > > I know you as a fine Hebrew scholar, and I also know that you have done much > work on the DSS. This thread was supposed to be descriptive and not > argumentative—we were asked to outline our positions on WAYYIQTOL. But when > you use the words "a gross misstatement," I think I am entitled to clear up > the issue. > > In scholarly studies it is very important not to assume anything before we > start. So, we cannot ASSUME that a grammatical form WAYYIQTOL existed in BCE. > But we must look at the writings we have from BCE, and they are the DSS. What > do a morphological study of the DSS reveal? About 500 prefix forms with > prefixed WAW. These forms are not geminated and the vowel patah is not > represented by the maters lexiones. This justifies my statement that "the > WAYYIQTOL form was not known in the DSS"—only YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW. The > data I presented from Origen and the Samaritan Penbtateuch justify my claim > that "the WAYYIQTOL was not known before the middle of the first millennium > CE." The only way to show that this is "a gross misstatement" is to refer to > manuscripts where the WAYYIQTOL is found. This is a challenge to you. > > You refer to Mishnaic Hebrew, to long and short forms and to irregular > verbs. But these data can be interpreted in different ways, and they prove > nothing regarding the existence of a grammatical WAYYIQTOL form. As far as > the data are concerned, they show that the WAYYIQTOL form did not existe > before the middle of the first millennium CE. This is not conjecture, it is > not an argument, but it is an OBSERVATION. And please, do not mix semantic > meaning with conversational pragmatic implicature. > > > Best regards, > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > > Onsdag 15. Mai 2013 17:01 CEST skrev Dave Washburn > <[email protected]>: > >>> 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. >> >> This is such a huge leap in logic I don't know where to begin. It's clear >> that by the time of the DSS the Wayyiqtol had fallen out of use. The >> progression into tense-based Mishnaic Hebrew makes that clear. But to jump >> from that to the idea that "the WAYYIQTOL form was *not known* before the >> middle of the first millennium CE" simply doesn't follow. We don't have any >> commentaries or grammars of Hebrew from that time or before, that's all. >> The DSS people were more focused on theology and praxis than on >> linguistics, so they didn't say anything about the structure of their >> language. But in the case of the Hebrew Bible, we have plenty of contextual >> and formal hints in the text that the form the Masoretes punctuated as >> wayyiqtol was, in fact, different in some way from the simple weyiqtol, so >> trying to claim it was "not known" is a gross misstatement. What he means >> is, we didn't have a visual (written) representation of the form before >> that. But the truth is, even that is not accurate, because the whole theory >> about long vs. short forms grew out of observation of the way some >> irregular verbs behave in the different stems. >> >> To John: Rolf has presented his novel idea here before, and I think it's >> safe to say it hasn't caught on. He denies that the wayyiqtol is a distinct >> form and then proceeds accordingly. But even without the Masoretic points, >> I think it's safe to say that the wayyiqtol is one of the most solidly >> established verb forms in the HB, which renders the theory moot. >> >> George, I'd like to hear more about your idea, either on or off list (on >> would be better so everybody can benefit, but I'll take whatever I can >> get!). >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:52 PM, 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Washburn >> >> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com >> >> Now available: a novel about King Josiah! > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
