[b-hebrew] Tense

Rolf rolf.furuli at sf-nett.no
Sun Dec 16 08:12:31 EST 2012


Dear Chavoux,

Se my comments below. 
 
 
Søndag 16. Desember 2012 12:09 CET skrev Chavoux Luyt <chavoux at gmail.com>: 
 
> Hi Rolf
> 
> I have just one question regarding your post...
> 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli at sf-nett.no>
> > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> > Cc:
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:55:42 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense
> >
> > Dear List-memebers,
> >
> <snip>
> > Now I will compare YIQTOLs with WAYYIQTOLs. I argue that the element that carries the action forward in the sequence of events that constitue a narrative, is not the verb, but the prefixed conjunction of the verb:  AND he did that.. AND she did that, AND...  Further I argue that  WAYYIQTOL is a YIQTOL with prefixed WAW, and therefore we expect that YIQTOLs  can be used in past settings when they are preceded by a word element that prevents the YIQTOL to have a prefixed WAW. This is exactly what we find!
> >
> >
> > SOME EXAMPLES WITH PAST SETTING:
> >
> >
> > 2 Kings 3:24-26: 4 YIQTOLs, 1 WEQATAL, 7 WAYYIQTOLs
> 2 Kings 3:1 (QATAL... WAYIQTOLs)
> >
> > 1 KIngs 13:33: 1 QATAL,2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL, 1, 1 WEYIQTOL
> & 1 Kings 13:1 (Also starts with QATAL)
> >
> > Hosea 12:5: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 2 YIQTOLs
> Hosea 12:4 (QATAL... WAYIQTOLs)
> >
> > Nehemiah 9:27: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs, 1WEYIQTOL
> Neh.9:1 & 9:6 (QATAL... WAYIQTOLs)
> >
> > 1 Samuel13:17, 18: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 3 WAYYIQTOLs
> 1 Sam.13:6 (QATAL... WAYIQTOLs)
> >
> > 2 Chronicle 25:14: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs
> 2 Chron.25:1, 3,4 (QATAL... WAYIQTOLs) etc.
> >
> > 2 Samuel 12:3: 1 QATAL,  3 WAYYIQTOLs, 3 YIQTOLs
> >
> > 2 Kings 8:22: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL (same root)
> >
> > Judges 9:38: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Isaiah 39:3 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL, 1 QATAL (of BW() and 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 QATAL
> >
> > 1 Kings 3:15, 16: 5 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Joshua 10:11, 12: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Kings 16:4,5: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Samuel 12:31: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 1 WEQATAL, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Samuel 15:6: 2WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Genesis 48:17 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 1 Chronicle 1:8: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Genesis 29:2. 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Genesis 37:7: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Samuel 17:17. 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs
> >
> > Judges 6:4: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Daniel 12:8: 1 QATAL, 1 YIQTOL, 1 WAYYYIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Samuel 22:39. 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > 2 Samuel 2:28: 2 WAYYITOLs, 1 YIQTOL
> >
> > Ezra 10:8: 2 YIQTOLs
> >
> > 1 Samuel 1:13: 1 YIQTOL, 1 WAYYIQTOL
> >
> > I argue that the WAYYIQTOLs and the YIQTOLs represent the same form, and that the prefix-difference is pragmatic, that is, >the reason why the YIQTOLs do not have a prefixed WAW  is in most cases that they are preceded by another element that >prevents a WAW  from being prefixed.> If YIQTOLs and WAYIQTOLS represent the same form/tense/aspect, then
> why is the narrative so often started with a QATAL instead of a
> YIQTOL? Why not simply use YIQTOL and WAYIQTOL all the way? The
> "traditional" opinion would be that the WAYIQTOLs is the continuations
> in narrative of the same narrative (and thus the same time) that is
> indicated by the QATAL that starts the narrative.
> 
> Now I know that even native speakers don't always follow the "rules of
> grammar" even when speaking their own language and I can appreciate
> that before the existence of "grammar school", people (including the> writers of the Bible) wrote as they spoke the language, rather than
> according to a "good grammar" they were taught in school. E.g. I would
> expect terms that can be compared to the English "I ain't gonna do
> it.", simply because some writers of the bible would actually talk
> like that. On the other hand, many of these "ungrammatical"
> expressions were probably changed into "proper" Hebrew by later
> scribes as the grammar of Biblical Hebrew became more established. So> how many of the "exceptions" to the ordinary understanding of the
> Hebrew forms can simply be the result of "wrong" usage in common
> speech (and therefore we would be mislead if we tried to use them for> formulating a grammar of "proper" Biblical Hebrew)?

RF: Regardless of our view of the Classical Hebrew verbal system we must study the text that we have. There are many orthographical variations, but if we accept the dates given in the different books; thus accepting that the text was written down over a period of several hundred years, the text is remarkably uniform.  If we take bad grammar into consideration, each scholar must, when he detects a clause that contradicts a particular view, ask whether this may be caused by bad grammar. We can illustrate the situation by looking at some of the examples above and the use of the negation L(.

Judges 6:4 tells us three things, which are connected wit WAW (and): And they camped (WAYYIQTOL), and they destroyed (WAYYIQTOL),  and they did not let anything remain (YIQTOL). The reason for the use of YIQTOL is that the verb is preceded by WAY+negation. if the negation was removed, the WAW would have been prefixed to the YIQTOL and would probably have been pointed as a WAYYIQTOL.

Daniel 12:8 tells us three thing which are connected with WAW (and): And I heard (QATAL), and I did not understand (WAW+ negation+ YIQTOL), and I said (WAYYIQTOL with paragogic he). The explanation is the same; if the negation was removed, the WAW would have been prefixed to the YIQTOL  and would probably have been pointed as a WAYYIQTOL. 

2 Samuel 22:38-39 tells us seven things which are connected wit WAW (and): And I pursued (YIQOL), and I  destroyed (WAYYIQTOL), and I did not turn (WAW+negation+YIQTOL) and I finished (WAYYIQTOL), and I crushed (WAYYIQTOL), and they could not rise (WAW+NEGATION+YIQTOL), and they fell (WAYYIQTOL). here we have the same situation as in the two other examples. Note also the clause-initial YIQTOL.

2 Samuel 2:28 and 1 Samuel 1:13 follow the same pattern. Can the use of the YQTOLs in these cases be caused by bad grammar? I see no reason for that, because the same pattern is followed in all the examples, and it is a logical pattern. There is no temporal differences between the WAYYIQTOLs and the YIQTOLs, and why should there be any aspectual diffrence? The YIQTOLs rather than WAYYIQTOLs are used for syntactical (pragmatic) reasons, because they are preceded by a negation that prevents the WAW  to be prefixed to the verb.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

> 
> Shalom v'chag sameach
> Chavoux Luyt
> _______________________________________________> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
 
 



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list