chavoux at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 06:31:17 EST 2012
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli at sf-nett.no>
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:12:31 +0100
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense
> Dear Chavoux,
> Se my comments below.
> 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
Thanks Rolf, I think I understand you better now. Do I understand you
correctly, that in _narrative_ (i.e. typically starting with QATAL and
then continuing with WAYIQTOLS) when there are "inbetween" words, like
LO, the WAYIQTOL changes to a W'"inbetween word" YIQTOL, with
basically the same meaning as "WAYIQTOL" (but _not_ the same meaning
as YIQTOL without waw - possibly followed with WAQATAL)?
More information about the b-hebrew