The history of the four conjugations

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

The history of the four conjugations

Post by R.J. Furuli »

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
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

Rolf,

What about the other ancient languages of the people living around Israel?
Kenneth Greifer
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by R.J. Furuli »

Kenneth Greifer wrote:


What about the other ancient languages of the people living around Israel?


Dear Kenneth,

Your question is an important one.

Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Syriac, and Arabic all have two conjugations and not four. Akkadian also has two basic conjugations. But that languages has also other forms that make the situation more complicated.

A most important issue related to my claim that there are only two Hebrew conjugations is: What about the wayyiqtol group? (I agree with Karl that “wayyiqtol” is a better designation that “imperfect consecutive”) If I am correct that yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol all are imperfective, and qatal and weqatal are perfective, there are thousands of verbs in narrative texts that are imperfective? Is that really possible?

Some year ago I taught a four-semester course in Ugaritic. The aim of the course was that the students should acquire a good command of Ugaritic and be able to translate Ugaritic documents into Norwegian. (As a result a book was published where I translated half of the Ugaritic documents, and the students the other half.) The course gave me the opportunity to make a detailed analysis of all the texts, and my interest was particularly with the verbs.

One of these texts is an account of King Keret of Hubur. Keret had a dream where the god El commanded him to make war against the kingdom of Udum. Keret was ordered to demand that the daughter of king Pubala of Udum be given him as wife. In the dream, the army is described, as well as how he should make a siege at Udum and negotiate with the king. The whole dream refers to the future, and the verbs have future reference. King Keret followed the command, and the account describes how King Keret mustered a big army, laid a siege at Udum, and negotiated with the king.
The important thing in our context, is that the account of what Keret did is almost word for word identical with the account of what he was ordered to do. In the dream account the verbs have future reference, and in the account of what he did, exactly the same verb forms, mostly imperfects, have past reference. When exactly the same verb forms are used with future and past reference, this shows that the aspects of the Ugaritic verbs are not connected with the temporal reference of the verbs.
The verbs in the “Baal cycle” also throw light on Hebrew narrative verbs. There are 96 yiqtols without prefixed waw and 42 yiqtols with prefixed waw in the narrative. There are also 18 qatals with past reference and 16 yiqtols with future reference. The great use of Ugaritic yiqtols in past narratived confirm the use of imperfective wayyiqtols in Hebrew narratives.

At another time I taught a two-semester course in Phoenician. One of the documents we studied was the Phoenician Karatepe inscription from the 8th century BCE. It contains a past narrative with the description of the actions of king Azatiwada. The 40 lines in the inscription contain two yiqtols, 12 qatals, six weqatals and 21 infinitive absolutes. The narrative verb form is infinitive absolute, and 16 of the infinitive absolutes have a prefixed waw just as the narrative consecutive imperfect in Hebrew. So, thousands of imperfective verbs in Hebrew narratives is not problem. We should note that in narrative Hebrew texts, it is not the verb form (conjugations) that drives the narrative forward, but the waws."Tthis happened and this happened and this happened. So the way-prefix is a syntactic (pragmatic) element and not a semantic one.

(The reason why I can write such a long post in a short time, is that I take text from my book to be published.)


Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

Rolf,
You said that some other ancient languages have two conjugations also. I would just like to clarify something. Do you mean in your opinion only or is that the opinion of mainstream scholars too? I am not saying you are a fringe scholar, I am just asking if your opinion is common among scholars because I don't know the subject at all, and I would not know how to look it up.
Kenneth Greifer
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by Isaac Fried »

R.J. Furuli wrote
Hebrew grammars lists four conjugations
There is something in all this that escapes me. As I understand it "conjugation" is a grammatical term peculiar to English, and the like. Are there also "conjugations" in Hebrew? Is say אכל a "conjugation", and what about אכלת is this a conjugation? Is שבוּר, 'broken', a conjugation?
Please explain this to me.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by R.J. Furuli »

Kenneth Greifer wrote:

You said that some other ancient languages have two conjugations also. I would just like to clarify something. Do you mean in your opinion only or is that the opinion of mainstream scholars too? I am not saying you are a fringe scholar, I am just asking if your opinion is common among scholars because I don't know the subject at all, and I would not know how to look it up.

Isaac Fried wrote:


There is something in all this that escapes me. As I understand it "conjugation" is a grammatical term peculiar to English, and the like. Are there also "conjugations" in Hebrew? Is say אכל a "conjugation", and what about אכלת is this a conjugation? Is שבוּר, 'broken', a conjugation?
Please explain this to me.


Dear friends,

It is very fine to ask questions in order to clarify issues; the answere to your questions may also help others.

I use the word “conjugation” related to Hebrew verbs in the usual technical sense of a groups of verbs that are semantically different, e.g., the prefix-conjugation and the suffix-conjugation.
(https://www.laits.utexas.edu/hebrew/dru ... aspect.pdf; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjugation)

Terminology can be descriptive or even misleading. In NT Greek, for example, the verb “conjugations” are called “tenses.” This is a misnomer because Greek has two groups of verbs that only represent tense, two groups that only represent aspect, and one group that represents both tense and aspect.

When I said that Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac, Phoenician, and Ugaritic only have two verb conjugations, the prefix conjugation (yiqtol) and the suffix-conjugation (qatal), that is a fact that nobody will dispute. Akkadian has two prefix-conjugation called “present” and “preterite.” This is again misnomers, because the conjugations are aspects. The “present” functions like Hebrew yiqtol and the "preterite" functions like Hebrew qatal. In addition, Akkadian has a conjugation called “perfect” expressed by a ta-infix in verb roots, and a conjugation called “stative” (formed by a verb or adjective with an attached personal pronoun).

The Hebrew system of verb conjugations presented in the grammars has nothing like it in any Semitic language, or in any other dead or living language. That the prefixed conjunction waw should give a yiqtol the same meaning as a qatal, and a prefixed waw to qatal should give it the same meaning as yiqtol, is unprecedented, and in my view very wrong. Please note that the way-prefix of wayyiqtol is exactly the same as the we-prefix in weyiqtol. The reason for the morphological difference is the phonological rules dealing with stressed syllables and which vowels can stand in open and closed syllables.



Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Schubert
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by Schubert »

R.J. Furuli wrote: ...
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.
...
I've read this thread with interest and on occasion uncertainty. I'm left with a perhaps simplistic response, wondering whether everything simply depends on how one defines "conjugation". For example the grammar by van der Merwe et al. (2nd ed.) attempts to reflect recent linguistic work and says that Biblical Hebrew has 8 conjugations (pages 524–5) – not four and not two.

Is this a situation parallel to the range of scholarly views on an appropriate definition of "aspect"?

Rolf, the link in one of your posts to a document at the University of Texas does not seem to work.
John McKinnon
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by R.J. Furuli »

John McKinnon wrote:

I've read this thread with interest and on occasion uncertainty. I'm left with a perhaps simplistic response, wondering whether everything simply depends on how one defines "conjugation". For example the grammar by van der Merwe et al. (2nd ed.) attempts to reflect recent linguistic work and says that Biblical Hebrew has 8 conjugations (pages 524–5) – not four and not two.

Is this a situation parallel to the range of scholarly views on an appropriate definition of "aspect"?

Rolf, the link in one of your posts to a document at the University of Texas does not seem to work.
Dear John,

I have only A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (1999) by van der Merwe et al in my library, so I cannot comment on van der Merwe's views in his bigger grammar. But the issue is not one of different definitions of terms. The issue can be stated without using the word "conjugation." Instead we can use the terms "prefix group of verbs" and "suffix group of verbs" In Aramaic and other Semitic languages we find these two groups of verbs, and all scholars agree that these two groups have different semantic meanings. In Hebrew we find exactly the same two groups. Some members of the suffix group has a prefixed we, and some members of the prefix group has a prefixed we and others has a prefixed way. The issue is whether the mentioned prefixes change the semantic meaning of the prefix group and suffix group.

Most scholars believe that the prefix group with prefixed we (weyiqtol) is not an independent semantic group—this we is only the conjunction "and." But most scholars believe that the we-prefix of the suffix group (weqatal) changes the meaning to the very opposite of the meaning of the verbs without the we-prefix. And similarly, with the way-prefix of the prefix group (wayyiqtol), it changes the meaning to the very opposite. This means that either Hebrew has four groups of verbs with different semantic meaning or just two groups of verbs.

During a period of 10 years I analyzed all the 79,574 finite and infinite verbs of the Tanakh, the DSS, Ben Sira, and the old Hebrew inscriptions. On the basis of this analysis I wrote a doctoral dissertation of 508 pages with translations of 2,106 passages with 4,261 verbs from the Tanakh. My conclusion was that Classical Hebrew has only two groups of verbs with different semantic meaning, just as the other Semitic languages. And I concluded that the we- and the way-prefixes represents the conjunction waw, and this waw has a syntactic (pragmatic) meaning and not a semantic meaning. I will add that different scholars have through the years tried to show that the way-prefix originally was an emphatic element of some kind, and that it therefore could switch the meaning of the verbs to which it was prefixed. But no one has succeeded in this.

In addition to the issue regarding the we- and way-prefixes, there is also an issue regarding the Masoretic text. There is no trace of four different semantic groups of verbs before the time of the Masoretes. So the four morphologically different groups of verbs that the vocalization and pointing of the Masoretes show (yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal, and weqatal), are they four different grammaticalized groups with different semantic meaning, or are they just two groups? In other words: Did the Masoretes by their vocalization and pointing invent four verb groups with differetn semantic meaning? Or did the Hebrew scholars who followed the Masoretes misunderstand their work, to the point that they gave a semantic interpeteation of features that were pragmatic?

So, you see, the issue is not connected with a different use of terminology. But the issue is pragmatics versus semantics.



Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Saboi

Re: The history of the four conjugations

Post by Saboi »

I studied how the Septuagint translates the verbs of Hebrew scripture, there is indeed two basic conjugations that deal with Past & Future and seems to contradict the modern understanding.

The most common verb is ויאמר but accordingly, this is imperfect, but if that was the case, why is never translated as an Imperfect, "I was saying" which would be הייתי לאמר and the Septuagint does not translate ויאמר into an Imperfect, but into the Aorist, εἷπεν.

Future
אבטח—πιστεύσω
תבטח—πιστεύσεις
יבטח—πιστεύσει

Past
ואבטחπίστευσα
ותבטחπίστευσας
ויבטחπίστευσε

The verbs are formed identically between Greek and Hebrew, only the position of tense and augment differs but not in English, "I trust, You trust, He trust". The English and Hebrew infinitives also forms identically, ל אכל = To eat alike the dative, ל דוד = To David.
Post Reply