Abnormal Interests

« The Manahat Sherd Again
Main
A (new to me) Online Linear A Resource »

June 26, 2007

On the Absence of the Paragogic nun in Epigraphic Hebrew

Warning: this post contains obscure points of ancient Hebrew grammar.

I finally got my hands on Kaufman's article about the Hebrew paragogic nun and scribal training (see postscript below). You may remember that Charles Halton at Awilum told us about this article a couple of weeks ago. Kaufman postulates that the early Hebrew scribes were formally taught a grammatical rule that determined when and how they were supposed to use the paragogic nun. He, 98-99, formulates the rule as follows:

The final nun of the imperfect indicative normally assimilates to the initial consonant of the next word, but it is written in pause and when the next word begins with a consonant that does not allow assimilation, specifically 'aleph (and probably ‛ayin).

Kaufman, 99, n. 6, recognizes that this rule is not a novel idea and that there are several notorious exceptions (98). His intent, 99, n. 6, is to "stress the importance of sandhi and scribal practice in the tradition of Biblical Hebrew." He uses the exceptions in a very imaginative, perhaps too imaginative, way to argue his case for there having been formal scribal training with regard to the use of the paragogic nun.

So I thought I'd test the rule against the all too small corpus of epigraphic Hebrew texts. I'm not implying that Kaufman is unaware of these texts. He is very much aware of them. He just didn't mention them in connection with this subject, at least not in this article. As expected, there aren't that many candidate examples in epigraphic Hebrew. Using Gogel, 97, as my guide, I found only one second person masculine plural imperfect and four third person masculine plural imperfects. There are no examples of the second person feminine singular, the only other possible candidate form.

Of these, only wyšb‛w in Kuntillet Ajrud 7:1 may to be "in pause." The verb lacks the paragogic nun. The š appears to stand for /ś/ in this case. The w is likely a waw consecutive. See Kaufman, 98, for examples of the paragogic nun with verbs having the waw" consecutive. He calls these cases "hypercorrections." All of them are in Deuteronomy and Judges. But his examples are quite a bit different in that they all begin rather than end sentences. It does not appear to me that the waw consecutive should of itself disqualify a verb from Kaufman's rule. Assuming Zevit's, 373, reading, the other third person masculine plural imperfect verb, [wy]tnw, in this line of Ajrud 7 is clearly not in pause position.

There are no examples where an 'aleph or an ‛ayin follows a candidate form. And to make the situation even clearer, there are no examples of the paragogic nun in any known epigraphic Hebrew text.

Does this mean that Kaufman is wrong about the paragogic nun and scribal traditions? Not exactly. First, I am concerned that the "scribal traditions" of the epigraphic material might be different from the scribal traditions of even the earliest stratum of Biblical Hebrew. There was likely more than one scribal tradition. Even if the Ajrud texts are the work of an amateur or amateurs, they still reflect some sort of a scribal tradition(s). Second, a single negative example in a text where there is reasonable dispute about reading and interpretation is not sufficient to negate Kaufman's proposal. (While there is a dispute about the reading of Kuntillet Ajrud 7 as a whole and line 1 in particular, there is, as far as I know, no dispute about the reading of the verb in question. However, it might not actually be in a pause position. But it sure seems like it is.) Third, the Hebrew from Kuntillet Ajrud may reflect a different dialect than that common to Kaufman's, 97, specific "living scribal tradition." In addition, the issue may be further complicated by wyšb‛w possibly (probably) being part of a traditional expression. See, for example, Genesis 35:29.

Scholars generally date the Ajrud texts to the late 9th or early 8th century BCE, high chronology, or simply 8th century BCE, low chronology. In any case, they are fairly early and Kaufman's suggestion depends in considerable measure on the scribal tradition that knew the rule for the paragogic nun being early. He, 97, does leave the door open slightly for differences in synchronic dialects rather than diachronic development as part of the explanation of the use of the paragogic nun. But I think his strongest case assumes diachronic development with increasing divergence between the written language and the spoken language. Even if wyšb‛w in Kuntillet Ajrud 7:1 is not counter evidence against Kaufman's suggestion, it isn't necessarily supportive of it either.

Postscript: When I check on the status of the volume containing the Kaufman article, it was checked out of my local research library and due sometime in 2008! That meant that it was checked out to a faculty member. This is seldom a good sign. However, despite my misgivings, I asked that it be recalled and lo and behold, in less than a week I received a notice that it had been returned and that it was on hold at the circulation desk for me to pick up. Thank you Professor . . . I think I know which Professor had it checked out but I'm not completely sure.

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at June 26, 2007 3:45 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2157

Comments

Posted by: Charles Halton at June 27, 2007 2:11 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: