Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: WP

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[3]: WP
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:13:44 -0500 (EST)



Well, at risk of getting out of depth, let me try to answer Rolf. He
wrote:

"... As an example, compare Leviticus 14:6 and 51. In both verses do we
find LQX with future meaning, in v 6 as a yiqtol and in v 51 as a weqatal.
It seems to me that the reason for the difference is that "the bird" is
fronted in v 6 because of emphasis. Both verses also have another weqatal
with future meaning, which is not forbidde by the word order, and which
also points in the mentioned direction.

...

Is it true that to study the text above the clause level demands several
more assumptions than a study of small/the smallest linguistic units? Is it
true that it is much more difficult to test conclusions based upon the
study of big chunks of text than those reached on the basis of smaller
units? If not, please tell me how we can test conclusions drawn about the
meaning of the Hebrew conjugations on the basis of discourse analysis
alone. For instance, is the view that weqatal has the same meaning as
yiqtol falsifyable?"

Yes, discourse analysis is difficult and challenging, and it is hard
to provide convincing proofs. On the other hand, no-one seems to be
convinced by anyone else's proofs which are argued at the clause
level. But proof at the discourse level is not impossible in
principle. Let me show that the view that weqatal has the same meaning
as yiqtol is indeed falsifiable.

I will refer back to the verses you quote, Lev. 14:6 and 51: a good
example in which yiqtol and weqatal appear in a very similar discourse
context and the difference, apart from the substitution of tenses, is
only in the word order. In an ideal test the word order would also be
the same. Now I agree with your analysis that these two verses are
synonymous except that there is extra emphasis on the bird in v.6, and
so this example supports the hypothesis that weqatal has the same
meaning as yiqtol. But the hypothesis is falsifiable, as these two
verses (or another similar pair) could in principle have different
meanings, and if they did the hypothesis would be falsified (except
that I would add various caveats about needing more than one example
in real language and where texts may have been corrupted etc).

There is perhaps a problem here: if the two verses had different
meanings, how could we know it? I suppose the answer to that is that
there could be a clear tradition of translation, comment etc going
back say to second temple times (when b-Hebrew was still just about a
living language) giving contrasting interpretations of the two verses.
As far as I know there is nothing like that in the example given e.g.
LXX translates both verbs LHMPsETAI.

Peter Kirk







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page