[b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
dwashbur at nyx.net
Sat Mar 13 14:13:18 EST 2004
On Saturday 13 March 2004 11:12, B. M. Rocine wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Thank the Lord that there is some overlap in these views! It turns out
> that Galia also relates her ideas to DRiver's, maintaining that she has
> improved on his ideas (see p. 196). I referred Rolf to Driver's idea that
> the prefixed forms express nascent situations.
Yes, she did relate it to Driver's. Thanks for reminding me. It's been a
couple of years since I read her book, so obviously I need to go read it
> Galia's idea is that the wayyiqtol is *inherently* sequential by virtue of
> the negation or specification of the modal yiqtol when vav plus the
> definite article is added. The naked yiqtol refers to a "possible"
> situation, and the wayyiqtol refers definitely to one of these possible
> situations, namely the actual situation. The next wayyiqtol expresses the
> next definite situation thereby moving the R-time.
Yes, and it was within that framework that she critiqued my approach.
> I think Rolf may disagree on what becomes a rather small point in my
> estimation. He may say that there is nothing about the wayyiqtol that
> makes it inherently sequential. The form merely implies sequentiality in
In that regard, if in no other, I agree with him contra Hatav. I don't see
inherent sequentiality, either. That seems to be just about the only point
of contact that Rolf's view and mine have, though.
> > On Saturday 13 March 2004 06:24, B. M. Rocine wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > For years now--can you believe how time flies?-- this has been a
> > > feature of your model for me to swallow: that a wayyiqtol that you
> > > to be imperfective is used most often in a context that features the
> > > advance of time. In my understanding of aspect, the advance of time
> > > favor, if not require, a perfective form. But I may be understanding
> > > Let me see if I can explain, in your view, how an imperfective form can
> > > used in a passage where story time advances.
> > >
> > > Wayyiqtol refers to a situation that obtains (essentially saying that
> > > it begins) but the verb form doesn't by itself indicate anything about
> > > the situation's completion. The verb form leaves, in and of itself,
> > > the situation open on the anterior end, because it is imperfective.
> > > Then,
> in a
> > > text, along comes the next wayyiqtol, a new beginning. A new beginning
> > > usually (but not necessarily) *implies* the ending of the previous
> > > situation. IOW, one situation is now usually *inferred* to be complete
> > > simply because a new one has obtained or begun.
> > >
> > > This view of wayyiqtol seems rather like that of S.R. Driver, no?
> > [snip]
> > Bryan,
> > It actually sounds to me more like Galia Hatav's view that wayyiqtol
> > R-time.
> > --
> > Dave Washburn
> > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> > Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
> > is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
More information about the b-hebrew