Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf
  • Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:24:18 +0200

Dear George,

Thank you for your other post today when you clearly expressed how you
defined each verbal form.

In this post you are in my opinion both right and wrong. I heartily agree
that we cannot isolate Hebrew from other Semitic languages. There are many
similarities between the Semitic languages, but there are differences as
well. And we do not know if and how one language influenced another language.
Moreover, languages change over time, and if there was an influence, what was
the language like at the time of the influence. I use an example in relation
definiteness/indefiniteness: A substantive in the determined state (some
call the ending of the substantive "the definite article") of Biblical
Aramaic is always definite. But a substantive in the determined state in
Syriac can be either definite or indefinite. The Aramaic of Daniel is
Imperial Aramaic, so the time between the two languages is 400-500 years or
less. If the late date of Daniel is used, the time can be less than one
hundred years.

Let us now make a comparison of the conjugations:

HEBREW: Prefix: YIQTOL, suffix: QATAL, consecutive: (WAYYIQTOL, WEQATAL),
imperative: QEBOR

AKKADIAN: Prefix "preterit": IPRUS, prefix "present":IPARRAS, perfect:
IPTARAS, and stative:PARIS, imperative:PURUS

UGARITIC: Prefix: YQTL, suffix: QTL, imperative: QTL

PHOENICIAN: Prefix: YQTL, Suffix: QTL, Imperativ QTL

ARABIC: Prefix: YAQTULU, Suffix: QATALA, Imperative: 'UQTUL

ETHIOPIC; Prefix "present": YEQATTEL, Prefix: "subjunctive" YEQTEL, Suffix:
QATALA, Imperative: QEBER

SYRIAC: Prefix: NEQBOR, Suffix: QEBAR, imperative: QEBOR

All the languages have one prefix form and one suffix form. Akkadian has two
prefix forms. The long one in most cases refer to present and future, and the
short one in most cases refer to the past. But both forms can refer to past,
present, and future. It is believed that Ugaritic has a short prefix form,
QATUL, with past reference, and a long prefix form, YAQTULU, with
present/future reference. The problem is that Ugaritic has no vowels, except
in connection with alef, so this view may or may not be correct. Ethiopic has
one short prefix form, which often is modal, but can be indicative. It also
has a long prefix form. Hebrew, Ethiopic and Ugaritic suffix forms can have
future reference.

The basic differences between the verbal systems are that Akkadian has two
conjugations more than the other languages, and that Hebrew is supposed to
have two conjugations more than the other languages. But the extra
conjugations in Akkadian and Hebrew are different. There can be no doubt
that Hebrew WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL are exceptional compared with the other
Semitic languages. So my question is: From where did the two forms come, and
how can we draw lines between the antecedent of the Hebrew forms?




Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway.




Tirsdag 28. Mai 2013 12:45 CEST skrev George Athas
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:

> Rolf,
>
> I think you have created a false dichotomy when you say "we cannot
> interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to
> analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards."
>
> Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language, which means its related to other
> Semitic languages. This doesn't mean it has no distinction from other
> Semitic languages. The fact that we can label Biblical Hebrew (and even
> there, we have two or three different types) means it has its distinctives.
> However, to treat Biblical Hebrew in isolation from other languages means
> we are not treating it as a Semitic language. We need to strike the
> balance. You can't just look at Hebrew and not at its close relatives,
> because that would not be treating Hebrew as Hebrew. It would be treating
> it as something else. And that, I believe, is one of the methodological
> flaws in your and Karl's respective approaches. You look only at Hebrew,
> and do not appreciate its distinctives in light of its similarities to its
> genetically related languages.
>
> Cheers!
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>
> From: Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no<mailto:rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>>
> Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 8:28 PM
> To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf
>
> Dear Karl,
>
> You have made several good points. I agree, contrary to George, that we
> cannot interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need
> to analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards. But here is the
> problem. We cannot start with "cogito ergo sum," as did Descartes, but any
> study must build on auxiliary hypotheses (cf. Duhem/Quine thesis). This
> means that we must build on the works of others, and the conclusions they
> have drawn. As for the Hebrew verbal system, there are too many auxiliary
> hypotheses, and too many different definitions. Therefore most students of
> Hebrew, including many scholars, are just parroting what others have said.
> I disagree with George, but I know that he for many years have wrestled
> with Hebrew verbs, and his system is a novel system that differs from
> others.
>
> From my early student days, I have sought a way to reduce the auxiliary
> hypotheses (or assumptions), and to avoid to start with a definition of
> aspect (more than twenty different definitions exist)—if we start with a
> definition, we are bound, and in a way we have violated the basic
> scientific principle: "If the conclusions of a study is given before the
> study starts, the study is not scientific." As for me, my study builds on
> four assumptions, 1) the Masoretic texts represents the the text of the
> Tanakh in the time BCE (text critical matters are of course considered),
> 2) a study of all the verbs of the Masoretic text will show the function
> and possibly the meaning of the Hebrew verbal system in the time BCE, 3)
> tense -not temporal reference) is grammaticalization of location in time,
> and 4) Hebrew, as any other language, can be analyzed by the parameters
> event time, reference time, and the deictic center. I think that most
> Hebrew scholars agree with 1) and 2), and most linguists agree with 3) and
> 4).
>
> The advantage of the parameters mentioned in 3), is that by using them we
> can show whether a language has tenses (semantic meaning) or only temporal
> reference that must be seen from the context (conversational pragmatic
> implicature). Further, these parameters can be used to find if a language
> has aspects, and to describe the nature of these aspects (six basic
> differences between the aspects in the languages of the world can be
> pinpointed). Thus, the nature of the Hebrew aspects can be described
> without starting with a particular definition.
>
> I started with a study of tense/temporal reference. When the tense is past,
> reference time (RT) comes before the deictic center (C), when it is future,
> RT comes after C, and when the reference is present, RT and C coincides. An
> analysis of ALL the verbs of Classical Hebrew gave the result that all verb
> forms can be used with past, future and present reference. Therefore,
> Hebrew does not have tenses.
>
> It is not true that I have limited myself to a study of tense, because
> tense plays only a minor part in my dissertation. As a matter of fact,
> aspect both can and MUST be studied apart from tense. Aspect is
> non-deictic, and the relationship between event time and reference time,
> which expresses the aspect, does not say anything about tense. When
> reference time intersects event time and a part of event time is made
> visible, there are differences in three respects, 1) the angle of
> intersection (before or at the beginning, in the middle, immediately before
> the end, and after the end), the breadth of the intersection (Is the whole
> event time or a small of big part of it made visible), and 3) the quality
> of the intersection (are details made visible or not). Because there are
> two aspects, six differences can be measured, and this has nothing to do
> with tense. Most of my dissertation deals with aspectual matters, and it is
> shown that the the relationship between event time and reference time is
> uniform in YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL, and it is uniform in QATAL and
> WEQATAL. However, most scholars do not accept this, and in their models
> temporal references are important. Therefore, it has to a rather great
> extent ben necessary for me to discuss the temporal references of the verbs
> in order to compare my model to other models.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
> Stavern
> Norway
>
> Mandag 27. Mai 2013 13:57 CEST skrev K Randolph
> <kwrandolph AT gmail.com<mailto:kwrandolph AT gmail.com>>:
> George:
>
> Rolf has done the study with greater granularity, statistical analysis,
> better knowledge of linguistics and scholarly literature, but it appears
> that he limited himself to tense. What I notice is that the Yiqtol />
> Wayyiqtol applies to a greater range of moods than does Qatal, in fact is
> often a marker that another mood applies, but that’s not its main use.
> I read the text first of all to analyse, what does it mean? No, not the
> subjective “What does it mean to me?” rather what does it mean objectively?
> That’s where all that I was taught about the Biblical Hebrew verb fell
> apart: tense, aspect, definite/indefinite, none of those could be
> consistently applied to the whole text.
> Do we go with models, or with data?
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, George Athas
> <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au<mailto:George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>>wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> > I disagree with your perception that qatal and yiqtol have the same
> > definiteness. See my response to Rolf in this thread.
> >
> >
> > *GEORGE ATHAS*
> > *Dean of Research,*
> > *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au)
> > *Sydney, Australia*
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page