Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: The form of weqatal

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[6]: The form of weqatal
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:48:01 -0400


Yes, you've got my point! I am beginning to think that QATAL
corresponds pretty well to the perfect aspect in English etc, i.e. to
any one of present perfect, past perfect and future perfect depending
on the reference time in the context. I have just been working on
Psalm 119 and find that the verb forms in it fit very well with this
idea, even in this poetic text for which the normal rules of verb
forms are not supposed to apply - if one understands the QATAL of
roots like )HB to mean "have fallen in love" and so with a stative
meaning "love". (Incidentally the roots $MR and NCR seem to work in
this way too, and so need to be understood something like "have
committed oneself to keeping", which fortunately works nicely in the
target language I am working with). I suspect that in this way we can
explain the otherwise strange idea of QATAL with future meaning. (I am
not talking now about WEQATAL).

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: The form of weqatal
Author: dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date: 24/07/1999 11:19


Peter wrote in part:

> Similarly, W:LO)-NOWTAR can be understood with a past meaning. This is
> an interesting one which ties up with Bryan's idea of QATAL being
> stative, a state arrived at as a result of a previous event. The
> English idiom is actually similar. "No-one is left" appears to be
> present tense, but is actually perfect, for "left" is the passive past
> participle of the verb "leave". Similarly "no-one will be left" also
> has a past element. If we look at the reference time, in a verse like
> 2 Samuel 17:12, which is the time of the observation, the observers
> say that in the battle which is already past the attackers did not
> leave anyone alive, and so in that sense "no-one will be left" is past
> relative to the reference time. This is basically the same argument as
> with ):A$ER NIMCF) but slightly more subtle. These subtleties need to
> be looked at carefully by those trying to understand the Hebrew verb
> system, and certainly not rejected as "example[s] of how people
> holding traditional viewpoints defend these with questionable means"
> or as fighting "with tooth and nail".

If you mean "past from the POV of the battle already being seen as
over" I agree. In this case, I wonder if the English future perfect
wouldn't be a better choice: "We will attack them wherever we will
have found them", and "No one will have been left alive."

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page