[b-hebrew] no to aspect
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 08:22:49 EST 2011
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Genesis 1:3 “and there was light (light came into existence)” yiqtol.
> >> wyhy is not a yiqtol. That would have been (w) yhyh
> > Does the prefixed waw indicate a difference in conjugation?
> Actually, it is the verb form itself, yehi versus yihyeh.
> That was then frozen with 'wa'.
Have you considered that YHYH in over 400 times it is used is never found
with a prefixed W-? What does that do to the claim that YHY is not a yiqtol?
Further, when we look at the about 50 times YHY is used without a prefixed
W-, how is its meaning different from YHYH? How do you account for the six
verses where both YHY and YHYH are found in the same verses, and
differentiate the meanings in the three verses where the YHY has no prefixed
> > It is my understanding that Rolf’s dissertation found no difference in
> meaning between those yiqtols that have that prefix and those without. I,
> too, don’t see a difference.
> Just because a hunter sees no deer doesn't mean that there aren't any
> in the forest. Success can also depend on how they look. As you
> yourself speculated, another student probably wouldn't find aspect if
> they used Rolf's methods.
My “speculation” is not just a shot in the dark, rather it is based on
trying to read the text as aspectual and finding that that action often
required mental gymnastics that often seem strange.
> > Here the question is not the MT, but what does the MT mean?
> Actually, the MT is part of the evidence.
> The MT distinguishes wayyaqtel from yaqtiyl.
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Your response indicates that you
are basing it on the MT points, which have been shown to be untrustworthy,
whereas my question was based on the MT consonantal text.
> > “'aspect' is ultimately subjective”??? Doesn’t that undermine claims of
> objectivity in linguistic studies?
> Deal with it.
It appears from your statement that you make the claim that yiqtol encoding
for imperfective aspect is a subjective determination, on a case by case
basis. If that’s the case, then how can one make a definitive statement that
yiqtol encodes for aspect, imperfective aspect, and qatal encodes for
perfective aspect? And wayiqtol for perfective aspect?
> >> Most Semitists view the wayyiqtol structure as a perfective,
> >> among other things, and not as an imperfective.
> > Yet you admit that it is possible that most can be wrong.
> yes. Just like it is also possible that most can be right.
Which is why we need to look at the original data and not argue what others
> The LXX, targumim, Syriac, MT, all broadly testify
> that the wayyiqtol was perfective rather than imperfective.
I can’t comment on these, as I have not looked at translations (other than
short sections) in decades. But how much of these determinations are based
on differences in languages, how much in that the meanings of the
conjugations in Hebrew changed as it changed from Biblical Hebrew to
Mishnaic Hebrew, and the fact that by far the majority of wayiqtols are
found in narrative portions of Tanakh?
> Randall Buth, PhD
> randallbuth at gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew