[b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a present event?
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Fri Jun 19 02:52:11 EDT 2009
Dear Randall,
Now we come to the leaning tower of Pisa. But before we can see how
straight it is, we need some discussion. While I would not use the
discourse analysis of Niccacci or anyone else to find the *meaning*
of Hebrew verbs, discourse analysis has its legitimate place in the
study of any language. By the help of discourse principles we can
find linguistic conventions and particular discourse patterns.
In connection with our discussion, we may note that the use of
personal pronouns is different in connection with participles
compared with finite verbs. When a participle functions similarly to
a finite verb it is often preceded by a pronoun. But together with a
YIQTOL, a WAYYIQTOL, or a QATAL we rarely find a personal pronoun.
And when we find one, our first thought is that it stresses the
person in some way.
On this basis, your B-examples (hu yivne [davar]) and your C-examples
(hu bana [davar]) in your first post in this thread are excluded
because of discourse reasons, and not because of temporal reasons.
We also know that word order can be important because of the
discourse factors theme and rheme, or because of modality
considerations. The first verb R)H in your example "*er'e et ha-`ets
sham *"I see the tree there"" may have been taken as jussive because
of its clause-initial place. So, if an author wrote in the
indicative, he would hardly have started with a YIQTOL (though there
are some clause-initial YIQTOLs in indicative clauses).
My main point in the previous paragraph is that we must take the
discourse constraints into consideration. We cannot just point to
examples of pronouns and participles with present reference in direct
speech, and argue that there are few if any YIQTOLS and QATALs with
present reference in direct speech. And therefore, the participle is
THE present form in BH. Moreover, there can be other reasons for the
use of a particular form (e.g., a participle) in a particular
context, and situations which are different may be scarce.
But what kind of examples do we have from Pisa? All quotes are from NIV
YIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE
DEUT 20:20:
However, you may cut down trees that you know (YIQTOL)
A present state (to know) is expressed by YIQTOL.
2 Samuel 18:27:
The watchman said (WAYYIQTOL), "It seems to me (PERS. PRON+PART) that
the first one runs (NOUN) like Ahimaaz son of Zadok." "He's a good
man (NOMINAL CLAUSE.)," the king said (WAYYIQTOL). "He comes (YIQTOL)
with good news."
A present action (to come) is expressed by YIQTOL.
WAYYIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE
1 KINGS 19:10:
He replied (WAYYIQTOL), "I have been very zealous (QATAL+ INF. ABS)
for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected (QATAL) your
covenant, broken down (QATAL) your altars, and put your prophets to
death (QATAL) with the sword. I am the only one left (WAYYIQTOL+
PERS. PRON), and now they are trying to kill (WAYYIQTOL) me too."
In this verse we find two WAYYIQTOLs with present reference, and the
first is connected with a personal pronoun.
1 Kings 8:20:
"The LORD has kept (WAYYIQTOL) the promise he made (QATAL): I have
succeeded (WAYYIQTOL) David my father and now I sit (WAYYIQTOL) on
the throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised (QATAL), and I have
built (WAYYIQTOL) the temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of
Israel.
In this verse we find three WAYYIQTOLs with a present completed
force, and one is used with present reference ("I sit")
QATAL WITH PRESENT REFRENCE
1 SAMUEL 8:5:
They said (WAYYIQTOL) to him, "You are old (QATAL), and your sons do
not walk (QATAL) in your ways;
In this verse we have two QATALs with present reference. The second
do not fit your exceptions, because it is negated. But this is rather
artificial; why should not a negative statement with present
reference be representative of present reference?
1 Kings 17:24:
Then the woman said (WAYYIQTOL) to Elijah, "Now I know (QATAL) that
you are a man of God
The QATAL is connected with the adverb "now," so the reference must
be present.
WEQATAL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE
Genesis 9:9, 11:
(9) I now establish (PARTICIPLE + PERS. PRON) my covenant with you
(11) I establish (WEQATAL) my covenant with you
Here we have exactly the same present situation in both instances. In
the first case it is expressed by a personal pronoun and participle,
and in the second case it is expressed by a WEQATAL. This shows that
there are several ways for the expression of present reference in
direct speech.
In order to be sensitive to gravity, it is important, not only to
avoid saying that the leaning tower of Pisa is standing straight, but
also avoid saying that the tower is leaning in the opposite direction
than really is the case. This would be the case if one tries to
explain away examples that contradict particular viewpoints.
I do not dispute your claim that a normal way of expressing present
reference in direct speech is by the use of a personal pronoun and a
participle. But I say that there also are other ways, as shown above;
and the examples could be multiplied. However, to find the most
common way to express direct speech tells us very little regarding
which verb forms in BH that can be used with present reference. This
is so because the situations from which examples can be taken are so
restricted. In order to find how present reference is expressed in
BH, we must consider all such situations. this is corroborated from
the examples Waltke/O'Connor give regarding YIQTOL and present
reference.
BTW. In this thread no one has claimed that WAYYIQTOL is a present
tense. The closest we come to such an idea is that I said that
WAYIQTOL is nothing but a YIQTOL with a prefixed conjunction.
I never use the word "present tense" to describe BH or English verbs,
because in these cases I view the expression as a misnomer.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>After another set of six comments, it is probably useful to re-orient
>back to the original issue. None of the comments proposed
>a YIQTOL example in an actual, positive, real, present reference,
>(yes, given a strict set of parameters to insure that we are
>comparing a few apples to a few apples)
>though one comment assured that such was 'accurate', and another
>seemed to imply that the vayyiqtol was effictively a present tense. If the
>latter, then one wonders what distinguishes vayyiqtol +Subject from
>ve-Subject+qotel, or even ve-qotel Subject? But that would need to
>be a different thread.
>
>Let's keep looking for some bonafide examples
>of present yiqtol without outside contingencies. The kind that
>Hebrew profs keep giving me like:
>
>* er'e et ha-`ets sham *"I see the tree there"
>
>Again, look at this the other way around:
>What if I had a class and was saying to a standing student
>
>* ta`amod sham vaani e`mod po
>as if to say * "you're standing there and I'm standing here"
>
>I would have hoped that people would have jumped all over me and
>said
> 'show us some good examples for the kind of Hebrew you're teaching!'
>(they sure do that fast when they hear participles !
>"I get slandered, libeled, I hear words I never heard in the Bible")
>
>Instead, it may be that people are looking from a 'leaning tower of pisa'
>so that if I would lean with them they would say
>'you're standing straight'.
>
>But I'm sensitive to gravity and want to stand straight.
>
>blessings
>Randall Buth
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Randall Buth, PhD
>www.biblicalulpan.org
>randallbuth at gmail.com
>Biblical Language Center
>Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>_______________________________________________
>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