Dear Michael, There is absolutely no evidence i favor of a Canaanite influence on Hebrew verbs. But because the Canaanite languages and Hebrew are cognate languages, it is not surprising that there are similarities. The supposed difference between an old supposed YAQTUL form versus a YAQTUTU form is unclear. For example, in Ugaritic there are no vowels, but ALEPH is written in three ways, as )A, )I, and )U. Graphic evidence of the vowel U requires a final ALEPH, which is rare.
The KIRTA (KERET) account in Ugaritic first tells of detailed events that will happen in the future, then there is a description of exactly the same events with past reference—the events had happened. Interestingly, the same verbs and verb forms are used in both accounts, first with future reference and then with past reference. We find similar situations in other Ugaritic accounts. Thus, if there is a similarity between Ugaritic and Hebrew, it must be that the prefix form (in Hebrew as YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL) can be used both with past and future reference. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Torsdag 26. September 2013 04:27 CEST skrev Michael Abernathy <[email protected]>: > I don't want to stir this pot but I do have a question. If the Hebrew > prefix form derived from or was influenced by the Canaanite language > would we have any clue in a unpointed Hebrew text as to whether a verb > would be heard as either a /yaqtulu/ or /yaqtul? /I can't help thinking > that the original pronunciation may have made the use clearer. > Sincerely, > Michael Abernathy _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
