[b-hebrew] The use of the Yiqtol in Isaiah 1:21
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Tue Apr 21 06:08:42 EDT 2009
There are several different views regarding the
meaning of the Classical Hebrew conjugations. The
basic methodological problem that we find in
grammars and textbooks, is that no attempts are
made to distinguish between the semantic meaning
(grammaticalized meaning) of the verb forms and
conversational pragmatic implicature (meaning
that is derived from the context). I am not aware
of any study of Hebrew verbs apart from my own
doctoral dissertation (which is based on an
analysis all the 80.000 finite and infinite verbs
of Classical Hebrew) where this difference is
systematically pursued. The same is true
regarding Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Aramaic no
such studies do exist.
I agree that the YIQTOL in Isaiah 1:21 has past
reference. But I disagree with George that the
YIQTOL form indicate indefinite action and does
not express one specific concrete action. For
example, do not the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs with
past reference in Nehemiah 3:14, 15 express
concrete specific actions just as do the QATALs?
I would also say that to ascribe tense to the
conjugations (past tense to WAYYIQTOL and
present/future tense to YIQTOL) is misleading; it
fails to distinguish between semantics and
pragmatics. The same is true with the claim that
a YIQTOL with past reference must have a
different procedural trait, i.e., being
progressive, iterative, or habitual ("durative
past" is a misnomer, because durativity is an
Aktionsart term, and a verb in QATAL is just as
durative as the same verb in YIQTOL) than a
WAYYYIQTOL. Joüon/Muraoka (113 h) lists several
YIQTOLs with past reference having no durative
(sic) or iterative force. And there are many,
many more such verbs.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>In addition to Karl's response, the context is
>helped along by the first clause of the verse,
>which talks about what the steadfast citadel has
>become. A change has evidently occurred, so it
>makes sense that what is on view is the
>transition from a positive status to a negative
>status. So the markers around the Yiqtol suggest
>a past reference. A Yiqtol indicates an
>indefinite action - that is, not one specific
>concrete action (that's Qatal). So, a habitual
>action in the past fits the criterion of an
>indefinite past action.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>GEORGE ATHAS
>Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>www.moore.edu.au
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list