Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 98, Issue 19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 98, Issue 19
  • Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:26:43 +0100

Dear Chavoux,

In a discussion on the basis of sound linguistic principles, we should distinguish between "past reference" and "past tense." The term "past reference" is the broader of the two; the use of the term implies that the action is past relative to a vantage point. But it does not tell whether the past reference is pragmatic or semantic. This means that the term does not tell us whether "past tense" is an intrinsic part of the verb, or whether the past reference is caused by different factors in the context. When we use "past tense," we speak of "grammaticalization of past location in time."

In the Tanakh the prefix form with the prefix WAY(Y)- is the default narrative form. Most WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, but the question is whether this past reference is an intrinsic part of the WAYYIQTOL form, or whether it is cause by the context. Narrative verbs have by definition past reference. So we must ask whether the past reference of WAYYIQTOL is caused by the narrative and the prefixed WAWs, that portray past events in consecution. Or whether the WAYYIQTOL IS a past tense.

We can only answer these questions by a study of the text of the Tanakh. We cannot answer these questions by looking at a number of WAYYIQTOLs; the only thing they tell us is that the reference is past, and not WHY it is past. Therefore, we need to study the whole text of the Tanakh, in order to find the relatively few instances where we can see the inner constituency of the WAYYIQTOL form.

Every language has a verbal system that is different from that of other languages. Because we find so few examples in the Tanakh where the true nature of WAYYIQTOL is found, we will get absolutely no information from the *translation* of Hebrew verb forms into another language. For example, we may look at the translation of one hundred WAYYIQTOLs in in the LXX. We see that they in most cases are rendered by Greek aorists and have past reference. But why do the Greek verbs have past reference? I analyze the aorist as an expression of the perfective aspect, and it does not have an intrinsic past tense. Others may analyze it differently. So why did the Greek translators choose the aorist? We cannot answer this question. Therefore, the choice of verb form in the LXX or in the Targums tell as nothing regarding the true nature of the WAYYIQTOL. This can only be found by a study of the Hebrew text itself.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





Hi Rolf
You wrote:

The witness of the Targums and the LXX cannot
be used to find the meaning of the Hebrew text.

Why do you say that? I would rather think the opposite since Hebrew was still a spoken language at the time that the Targums and LXX were made (although not by everybody), so I would assume that the translators had a better understanding and knowledge of the language than what we can have today. They might not have known the modern grammatical terms, but still understood the meaning of the language. As far as the Masoretes and Karaites are concerned, I would agree that their understanding might be more influenced by other spoken languages of their time, since Hebrew was no longer their native language, but only heard in synagogue.

Regards
Chavoux Luyt




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page