Dear John, See my comments below.
Torsdag 16. Mai 2013 00:44 CEST skrev John Leake <[email protected]>: > 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? I did both a synchronic and a diachronic study of my corpus, and the conclusion is that there is no diachronic difference in the use of verb forms in the Tanakh, except minor differences in the youngest books. I also considered literary styles and which verb forms used to follow other verb forms (for example when WAYYIQTOLs followed QATALs, when YIQTOLs were clause initial etc). My conclusion is that there is no difference in the MEANING of the verb forms in prose and poetry, or in narrative and prophetic texts. There are syntactic differences (=pragmatic differences) in the texts, but not semantic differences. This is the same as in the other languages of the world. I also carefully considered discourse analysis, and whether certain verb forms were connected with different kinds of discourse. A. Niccacci has done an extensive research in this area—he even believes that WEYIQTOL is an independent grammatical form. His results are quite impressive, but still not convincing. My conclusion is that discourse analysis has nothing to contribute in connection with finding the meaning of the Hebrew verb forms. The basic problem is that big chunks of text are studied are studied rather than single words, and there are no controls for the conclusions drawn. > > 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? Because most vowels are lacking in Ugaritic, it is very difficult to draw conclusions as to word endings. In addition, we do not know whether a certain phenomenon is semantic or pragmatic. Interestingly, Ugaritic has been used to argue in favor of an old short preterite that was the predecessor of the preterite WAYYIQTOL. I am really stunned with these arguments, because the language shows the very opposite. Arabic and Akkadian are not so close to Hebrew as Aramaic. I would like to give some data regarding temporal reference in the Aramaic text of Daniel: YIQTOL: past: 19.1%, present: 15.2%, future 49.4%, present completed ("perfect"): 0.6%, modal 15.7% QATAL: past: 76.9%, present: 3.9%, future 1.1%, present completed: 15.7%, prepast: 2.5%, modal 0.0% Active participle: past: 64.0%, present 29.8%, future 2.5%, present completed: 1.2%, prepast: 0.6%, modal: 1.9% QATAL+participle: past: 93.5%, present 0.0%, future 3.2%, prepast 3.2%. The participle is used more in Aramaic than in Hebrew. But the same patterns are clear: All forms can be used with past, present, and future reference. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway > > 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
