Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi Rolf,

Wishing you a fulfilling and fruitful year in your teaching!

You asked re Neh 3:13-15:

>QUESTION: Which of the verbs in the three verses are imperfective and
which
>are perfective in your view? If you think this is "such a curious passage"
>I have several more being equally "strange".
>


I would appreciate, if you have the time,  that you would name a "curious"
passage or two to the list for discussion even if you don't have time to
participate in the discussion yourself.  Thanks!  

I am sure we would agree that the X-qatal constructions in this passage are
used to shift the focus of the discourse from the activities of one man to
the next, in effect dividing the passage into three sections.  The
weyiqtols and wayyiqtol specify the activities.  Perhaps the difference
between the weyiqtols and the wayyiqtols is that the wayyiqtol expresses
consecution of activity within the Hanun section, i.e. he built wall after
gate.

As for perfective and imperfective, I believe all the clauses in these
three verses are perfective(Perhaps the clauses with prefixed forms are
"more" perfective).  Notice I say clauses and not verb forms.  I think
aspect in BH, to a large degree, is a matter of implicature rather than
strictly morphology.  The only explicitly morphological expressions of
aspectual meaning are with the verbal participle(not like the _yo$bim_ of
3:26 which I believe is substantive rather than verbal) which is
imperfective and the wayyiqtol which is generally perfective and may be
considered intrinsically so.

Note:  In an earlier post I called the verbal participle a "predicative
Participle."  Maybe the terminology was ambiguous.

I do say that the morphology of the prefixed and suffixed verb forms have
distinct meanings that are related to a writer's viewpoint.  I just do not
class these meanings as aspectual per se.  I like the term "subjective
viewpoints."  Often, either prefixed or suffixed form is available to the
BH writer and more or less marked.  Here's the heart of the matter for me: 
I believe the suffixed forms(qatal and weqatal) are adjectival, being
derived by all accounts from the proto-form which expressed the subject of
the verb in a state.  The prefixed forms, on the other hand, describe
emerging action.  In order to express this in English I suggest a somewhat
'wooden' treatment of qatals that translates them using an "-er-word" in
English. Let me show you Neh 3:13-15 one more time, translated while trying
to preserve the meanings of the suffixed and prefixed forms with my
idiosyncratic translation technique.  

"It was Hanun and the inhabitants of Zanoah that were repairers(qatal) of
the V. Gate.  They were rebuilders(qatal) of it and then they
set(wayyiqtol) its doors, etc. And then they repaired(wayyiqtol)...the
wall..."

"As for Malichijah...he was a repairer(qatal) of the D. Gate.  He
rebuilt(yiqtol) it and set(yiqtol) its doors, etc."

"As for Shallum...he was a repairer(qatal)of the F. Gate.  He
rebuit(yiqtol) it, and set(yiqtol) its doors, etc."

I think this translation technique is more sensitive to the pragmatic
function of the verb forms as organizers of the discourse as well as
somehow preserving the distinct meaning of the verb forms.  Frankly, I
think English translations which translate all the verb forms in such a
passage using the English simple past, suggest that the Hebrew writer was
primitive, unskilled in rhetoric.  Nothing is farther from the truth.  In
addition, my translation is an attempt to preserve the difference between
the prefixed _we-_ and the prefixed _way-_.  

Let me qualify my qatal translation method: Certain verbal roots are
themselves stative(eg. ml' or ytb in the Qal).  In addition, passive stems,
for instance Niphal, often, by virtue of the stem, express an adjectival
predication even with active roots.  In such cases an "-er-word" is then
not necessary for an English translation of suffixed forms. 

Let me also qualify my claim that the suffixed forms are intrinsically
adjectival while the prefixed forms are intrinsically descriptive of
emerging action.  I think we realize that BH is not BH is not BH.  We see a
language in evolution written over a long period.  T. Givon has gone so far
as to suggest that Early BH is a Creole.  The qatal, in its earliest use
expressing the subject in a state, was evolving into a past tense.  The
yiqtol, in its earliest use actually two forms describing emerging action
in divergent time frames, was converging into one non-past tense.  The
verbal participle, originally a timeless imperfective, was evolving into a
present tense.  But these developments were far from complete in the
Biblical corpus.  I think the *conventions* we see in operation, for
instance Vince's observation that the qatal in a dependent clause always
has past time reference, were ahead of the explicit *meaning* of the forms.
 In a sense, implicature became meaning. But not yet in any stage of Hebrew
we see in the Biblical corpus.  Overall, I tend to see verbal semantics in
the Tanakh as in a rather early stage in the evolution of BH.

Anxious to here from more of you folks on this thread whether you find the
it good, bad, or ugly!


Shalom,
Bryan

B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)