An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

future tense, etc., and a “shorter”(?) form for past narrative. Let us review some of the
comparative data. 68
f In Akkadian one finds a long prefix conjugation (the “present” iparras, irappud,
ikabbit) to express incomplete or habitual action in past time, a historical present or
actual present, and simple future, as well as modal nuances. As we shall see, this
range of uses comports almost exactly with that of the Hebrew yqtl (historically
*yaqtula). Akkadian also has a short prefix conjugation (the “preterite”—iprus, iplah,
ikbit) for either preterite action or the jussive mood. 69 The discovery of this form led
philologists to see West Semitic yaqtul (i.e., Hebrew jussive and wayyqtl) as both
preterite and jussive.
g In Arabic one also finds a long prefix conjugation (yaqtulu), signifying imperfect
aspect, circumstantial action, and (with the particle sawfa) future time. The short
prefix conjugation (yaqtul) signifies either the jussive mood or (with the negative lam)
preterite action. 70
h As for the evidence from Early Northwest Semitic, Ugaritic is problematic because it
is unvocalized. In the Amarna correspondence the long form (yaqtulu, pl.
yaqtuluna)[Page 469] denotes imperfective aspect, unreal mood, or general present
and future actions. The short form (yaqtul, pl. yaqtulu) denotes either jussive mood or
preterite action. 71
i How does this evidence help us in understanding Hebrew? Ewald observed that in
Hebrew verbs, where prefix forms vary, the wayyqtl form has the same shape as the
68 See N. Waldman, “The Hebrew Tradition,” Current Trends in Linguistics. 13.
Historiography of Linguistics, ed. T. A. Sebeok et al. (The Hague: Mouton, 1975)
1285–1330, at 1285–87.
* unattested form
69 Von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 102–3.
70 W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language (3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1898), 2. 1822; W. Fisher, Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972) 96.
pl. plural
71 UT §9.10 and n. 73 below. The most intensively studied part of the Amarna
correspondence is the body of letters from Byblos (background in P. Swiggers,
“Byblos dans les lettres d’el Amarna,” Studia Phoenicia. 3. Phoenicia and Its
Neighhors, ed. E. Lipiński [Leuven: Peeters, 1985] 45–58). See in general on the
language W. L. Moran, “The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic
Background,” The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961; rpt.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1979) 54–66, esp. 63–66; and, on the Byblian
letters, Moran, “Early Canaanite yaqtula,” Orientalia 29 (1960) 1–19, esp. 7–8.
Moran’s full study has never been published: A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of
Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets (Johns Hopkins University Dissertation,
1950); see there esp. pp. 43–51. See also A. F. Rainey, “Morphology and the Prefix-
Tenses of West Semitized El Amarna Tablets,” Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975) 395–
426