[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
unikom at paco.net
unikom at paco.net
Sun May 16 11:47:10 EDT 2004
When I read waiomer, I know that's "he said," or, perhaps, "and he said."
Did I understand you correctly that, in your opinion, this is actually the
future tense? That doesn't make sense to me.
You say, 998 wa's with future reference (if I understood you correctly).
How many of them are actually misinterpreted? For millenia, narratives
about the past were taken as prophecies - and translated as future. So the
actual number of really future tense wa's is likely much smaller than 998.
And for this number, how many wa's are in the conventional past tense? 10
times more? 20? So perhaps those 998 or less are simply a blur, errors,
I can't judge your work, of course; certainly not at this point, but these
objections spring to mind.
I know that my suggestion is very unusual, in fact, it rejects a view
that all scholars have accepted from the Karaite Ibn Nuh in the 11th
century CE and up to the present, except less than twenty scholars,
namely, that the WAYYIQTOL is different from YIQTOL. And further, if
my conclusions are accepted, a few thousand verbs in modern Bible
translations are in need of a re-translation. I do not think that I
am more clever than others, but I have two advantages, 1) I have
analyzed the whole corpus of classical Hebrew, and 2) I have based my
study on the assumption that Hebrew has at least two conjugations,
One's assumption is extremely important. If you start with the
assumption that there *are* four conjugations, most likely you end
with four conjugations as well - this is a fine example of
circularity. In my view, so many fine scholars have been led astray
because they have started with the assumption of four conjugations
and because no systematic attempt has been made to distinguish
between pragmatic and semantic factors.
An illuminating example of the last problem is that narrative
contexts are used to find whether WAYYIQTOL represent past tense or
the perfective aspect. But the worst place to look for this meaning
(from the perspective of semantics versus pragmatics) is in narrative
contexts. This is so, because any verb that is used to narrate
consecutive, past events must per definition have past reference, and
the events must be completed at speech time. Therefore, from a
semantic point of view, we learn very little, if anything at all
regarding the nature of WAYYIQTOLs in narrative contexts.
The first thing to do before an analysis of verbs starts, is to
differentiate between diachronic and synchronic matters. I have used
much time to study the diachronic evolution of Classical Hebrew. And
interestingly, while we can detect Early Biblical Hebrew, Standard
Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Qumranic Hebrew with many
differences in vocabulary and grammar, I have found no evidence that
the semantic meaning of the Hebrew conjugations have changed from the
first part of the Tanakh to the last part was written. To the
contrary, there is much evidence that the meaning did not change.
I have further studied the Amarna letters, Ugaritic, Canaanite, and
Akkadian grammar in order to see if there is evidence for a preterit
antecedent to WAYYIQTOL in these languages. The answer is negative;
the greatest weakness of the claims for the existence of such an
antecedent, is the complete lack of distinction between past tense
and past reference, i.e. between semantic and pragmatic factors. When
we in the Mesha inscription find about thirty YIQTOLs with prefixed
WAW with past reference (and one YIQTOL with past reference without
prefixed WAW), this is taken as proof that WAYYIQTOL existed outside
Israel. But as Muraoka once wisely wrote, how can we know that prefix
forms with a prefixed WAW are what Hebrew grammars technically call
*consecutive imperfect*? How can we know that the WAWs are not simple
conjunctions? The conclusion that the Mesha inscription and in other
documents are evidence for WAYYIQTOL is a glaring example of this
lack of differentiation between semantics and pragmatics.
On the basis of a thorough study of the classical Hebrew corpus with
the conclusion that the semantic meaning of verbs has not evolved
inside the corpus, ( and contrary to the strange meaning of some that
verbs have different semantic meaning in poetry and prose), all the
verbs can be treated on an equal footing. The whole study will later
be published, but allow me a few excerpts from my data base: 998
WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference; 965 QATALs with future
reference, 53 WEYIQTOLs with past reference, 2.505 QATALs and 1.804
YIQTOLs with present reference. 1.022 YIQTOLs with past reference.
Most revealing is a comparison of the environments of the YIQTOLs
and WAYYIQTOLs with past reference. It can be demonstrated that the
reason why scores upon scores of the YIQTOLs with past reference lack
a prefixed WAW, is that another word precedes the YIQTOL, thus
preventing such a prefix. But often a WAW is prefixed to the
preceding word (be it a negation, adverb or substantive), so if the
word order was changed, the YIQTOL would naturally become a WAYYIQTOL.
University of Oslo
>You surely know that your suggestion is more than a bit unusual. Could you
>support your argument statistically? It basically contradicts my
>experience, and although I'm always prepared to change my views when facts
>change, there has to be a good evidence.
>>Over a period of ten years I have analyzed all the more than 70.000
>verbs of the Tanakh, the DSS and the inscriptions as to temporal
>reference, modality and different discourse functions. My conclusion,
>for which I present more than one thousand examples in my thesis, is
>that Classical Hebrew has no tenses but two aspects (with very
>different characteristics compared with their English counterparts).
>The forms YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL all represent the
>imperfective aspect and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective
>aspect. The view of the "reversal of tense" by WE- WAY(Y) collides
>head on with the data material.<
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew