The history of the four conjugations
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:29 am
Dear list-members,
Grammatical comments from me on Classical Hebrew and not on translation have been advertised for. Here they come:
The error that is more devastating for Hebrew studies than any other error is the failure to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics. This is a failure to distinguish between the meaning that is an intrinsic part of a word or a sentence and that cannot changed, and meaning that is based on the context and therefore can change.
Hebrew grammars lists four conjugations: perfect (qatal), perfect consecutive (weqatal), imperfect (yiqtol), and imperfect consecutive (wayyiqtol); some add imperfect conjunctive (weyiqtol). I argue that the view of four conjugations is based on a misunderstanding. It is based on a semantic interpretation of pragmatic data. I will elucidate this.
The distinction between the supposed four conjugations is graphic, the prefixed we before qatal and the prefixed way i] before yiqtol and the reduplication of the yod[/.
How many conjugations do we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Only two! Some verbs have only the waw prefix, and imperfects with this prefix have no reduplication of the yod.
How many conjugations do we find in the Samaritan Pentateuch? Only two! And these have the same characteristics as in the DSS.
How many conjugations do we find in Origen’s transcriptions of the Hebrew text into Greek (in the third century CE)? Only two! The Greek letters omicron-ypsilon are used both at the beginning of imperfects with the we-prefix and the way-prefix in the Hebrew text. And there is no reduplication of the yod.
This means that evidence for four conjugations did not exist before the Masoretes at the end of the 7th century introduced vowels and accent marks. Are the four conjugations invented by the Masoretes? Absolutely Not! When the Masoretes started their work, there was no Hebrew grammar. The Masoretes did not even know the triliteral nature of Hebrew words, which all Hebrew grammar is based on. However, on the basis of the masoretic vocalization and stress, four groups of verbs can be distinguished in the text. But the most important question regarding these is never asked: “The difference between the four groups, is it pragmatic or semantic?” The answer is that the difference is pragmatic. How so?
Because Hebrew grammar did not exist, the vowels and accent marks (musical marks) were not introduced on the basis of grammar (semantics). They were introduced on the basis of the recitation of the text in the synagogue. The cantors presented the text as something between reading and singing, and the accents are marks of both stress, modulation, and music. The different kinds of text (prose, poetry, narrative, direct speech, prophecies, etc.) was recitated in different ways. Narrative texts had a different kind of stress/modulation than for example poetry or direct speech. And that is the reason why the stress is retracted in imperfects with the way-prefix, because these are numerous in narrative texts.
The Masoretes could not only base their vocalization and stress on what they heard in the synagogue, because patah and shewa, which represent the basic difference between the conjugations both were pronounced similarly-with an a-sound. So they could not distinguish between the two vowels when they heard the recitation. A phonological system, dealing with stress and which vowels could occur in open and closed syllables had been in existence for many centuries. The Masoretes used this system in addition to what they heard in the synagogue. Interestingly, on the basis of these phonological rules the way-prefix in imperfect consecutives can be shown to be identical with the we-prefix in imperfect conjunctive. So the way-prefix simply represents the conjunction “and,” and the reduplication of yod is based on the retraction of the stress.
The important point to keep in mind is that the work of the Masoretes was strictly pragmatic. They had no idea of Hebrew grammar or of four conjutations. Hebrew grammar could first be formed by induction on the basis of the Masoretic vocalization and the Massora, because it was based on the lists of words in the Massora.
How was Hebrew the modern grammar formed? A study of the Diqduq written by the karaite Yusuf ibn Nuh (11th century) and the writings of other karaites, such as Eli Ha-Levi and Menahem ben Saruk from the same time, show that they found the four patterns of verbs that today are viewed as conjugations. There was a lot of different opinions at that time. But comments from the mentioned authors show the first traces of a semantic interpretation of the pragmatic work of the Masoretes. This process was completed around 1200 CE with the grammar of David Kimhi.
The situation is rather ironic: The four groups of verbs that can be seen in the Masoretic text, that were based on pragmatics—what was heard in the synagogue and the phonological rules—were now interpreted in a semantic way as four different verb conjugations. This is an expression of the cardinal error, pragmatics is interpreted as semantics.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Grammatical comments from me on Classical Hebrew and not on translation have been advertised for. Here they come:
The error that is more devastating for Hebrew studies than any other error is the failure to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics. This is a failure to distinguish between the meaning that is an intrinsic part of a word or a sentence and that cannot changed, and meaning that is based on the context and therefore can change.
Hebrew grammars lists four conjugations: perfect (qatal), perfect consecutive (weqatal), imperfect (yiqtol), and imperfect consecutive (wayyiqtol); some add imperfect conjunctive (weyiqtol). I argue that the view of four conjugations is based on a misunderstanding. It is based on a semantic interpretation of pragmatic data. I will elucidate this.
The distinction between the supposed four conjugations is graphic, the prefixed we before qatal and the prefixed way i] before yiqtol and the reduplication of the yod[/.
How many conjugations do we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Only two! Some verbs have only the waw prefix, and imperfects with this prefix have no reduplication of the yod.
How many conjugations do we find in the Samaritan Pentateuch? Only two! And these have the same characteristics as in the DSS.
How many conjugations do we find in Origen’s transcriptions of the Hebrew text into Greek (in the third century CE)? Only two! The Greek letters omicron-ypsilon are used both at the beginning of imperfects with the we-prefix and the way-prefix in the Hebrew text. And there is no reduplication of the yod.
This means that evidence for four conjugations did not exist before the Masoretes at the end of the 7th century introduced vowels and accent marks. Are the four conjugations invented by the Masoretes? Absolutely Not! When the Masoretes started their work, there was no Hebrew grammar. The Masoretes did not even know the triliteral nature of Hebrew words, which all Hebrew grammar is based on. However, on the basis of the masoretic vocalization and stress, four groups of verbs can be distinguished in the text. But the most important question regarding these is never asked: “The difference between the four groups, is it pragmatic or semantic?” The answer is that the difference is pragmatic. How so?
Because Hebrew grammar did not exist, the vowels and accent marks (musical marks) were not introduced on the basis of grammar (semantics). They were introduced on the basis of the recitation of the text in the synagogue. The cantors presented the text as something between reading and singing, and the accents are marks of both stress, modulation, and music. The different kinds of text (prose, poetry, narrative, direct speech, prophecies, etc.) was recitated in different ways. Narrative texts had a different kind of stress/modulation than for example poetry or direct speech. And that is the reason why the stress is retracted in imperfects with the way-prefix, because these are numerous in narrative texts.
The Masoretes could not only base their vocalization and stress on what they heard in the synagogue, because patah and shewa, which represent the basic difference between the conjugations both were pronounced similarly-with an a-sound. So they could not distinguish between the two vowels when they heard the recitation. A phonological system, dealing with stress and which vowels could occur in open and closed syllables had been in existence for many centuries. The Masoretes used this system in addition to what they heard in the synagogue. Interestingly, on the basis of these phonological rules the way-prefix in imperfect consecutives can be shown to be identical with the we-prefix in imperfect conjunctive. So the way-prefix simply represents the conjunction “and,” and the reduplication of yod is based on the retraction of the stress.
The important point to keep in mind is that the work of the Masoretes was strictly pragmatic. They had no idea of Hebrew grammar or of four conjutations. Hebrew grammar could first be formed by induction on the basis of the Masoretic vocalization and the Massora, because it was based on the lists of words in the Massora.
How was Hebrew the modern grammar formed? A study of the Diqduq written by the karaite Yusuf ibn Nuh (11th century) and the writings of other karaites, such as Eli Ha-Levi and Menahem ben Saruk from the same time, show that they found the four patterns of verbs that today are viewed as conjugations. There was a lot of different opinions at that time. But comments from the mentioned authors show the first traces of a semantic interpretation of the pragmatic work of the Masoretes. This process was completed around 1200 CE with the grammar of David Kimhi.
The situation is rather ironic: The four groups of verbs that can be seen in the Masoretic text, that were based on pragmatics—what was heard in the synagogue and the phonological rules—were now interpreted in a semantic way as four different verb conjugations. This is an expression of the cardinal error, pragmatics is interpreted as semantics.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway