Thanks, Rolf, I'll have to look at the data in your two mails more closely at the w/e (frantically busy in the office doing contract work at the second so can't be distracted!)
Will get back. Best, John ---------------------------------- ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it ---------------------------------- On 16 May 2013, at 08:18, "Rolf" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
