Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Periphrastics in Is 2:2 and Micah 4:1 (retransmission)

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: Periphrastics in Is 2:2 and Micah 4:1 (retransmission)
  • Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:25:04 -0500 (EST)


Micah 4:1-2a Isaiah 2:2-3a

w:hfyfh b.:)ax:ariyt hay.fmiym w:hfyfh b.:)ax:ariyt hay.fmiym
yih:yeh har b."yt-y:hwfh nfkown yih:yeh har b."yt-y:hwfh
nfkown b:ro)$ hehfriym b:ro)$ hehfriym
w:ni&.f) hw.) mig.:bf(owt w:ni&.f) mig.:bf(owt
w:nfx:arw. (flfyw (am.iym w:nfx:arw. )"lfyw kfl-hag.owiym
w:hfl:kw. g.owiym rab.iym w:hfl:kw. (am.iym rab.iym
w:)fm:rw. w:)fm:rw.

WTS defined W:NI&.F) as "verb niphal participle masculine singular" in
both cases, but the same form could also be "verb niphal perfect 3rd
masculine singular", i.e. a "weqatal" form, as in EXO 25:28; 2KI
20:17; ISA 39:6; 52:13; DAN 11:12. Note that the following verbs are
also weqatal; and so I think it reasonable to take W:NI&.F) as
weqatal, not a participle at all. Does that help? Does it make any
difference whether this is a participle or a weqatal? NFKOWN is
similarly ambiguous, but would be an improbable "qatal" form if verbal
not participial (and oddly enough this form is quite common as a
participle but not found in the masculine singular as a finite verb).
I would suggest that a participle NFKOWN is appropriate with the
meaning "continue to be established" but not so approriate for
W:NI&.F) as there is just one raising up. But then what about the
following weqatal's: are they one future event e.g. one day when this
will happen, or do they indicate that people will continue to stream,
to come, and to say?

I can only guess that Isaiah felt that Micah's version was ambiguous
(it could mean "There will be a mountain of the Lord; it has been
established as chief of the mountains...") and so clarified things by
putting the ambiguous NFKOWN with its auxiliary.

Another thought: Maybe Isaiah was adjusting the metre to make better
poetry: Micah has regular three beat lines and then the intrusive
W:)FM:RW., whereas Isaiah has a 3-4-4-3-4 pattern (putting the two
short lines together). Actually that line structure suggests a
different parallel of B:RO)$ with W:NI&.F) and tends back to the
latter being a participle.

So maybe this is tied up with philosophical debates even if you didn't
intend that.

I don't think I have answered your question, but at least I have given
food for thought!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Periphrastics in Is 2:2 and Micah 4:1 (retransmission)
Author: zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph at internet
Date: 29/01/1999 18:39


Rolf, don't feel so alone with the lack of responses that you
mentioned in your post, "Different verb forms - same meaning?" I
also have received no responses to my posting on what looks like
periphrastics, and my question was not even part of a search for
resolution of a great philosophical debate. It was simply a
request for clause-level analysis of a couple of passages.

I wrote:

> It appears to me that the YiHYeH ... NfKoWN ... W:Ni&&f) in Micah
> 4:1 is a
> compound periphrastic. The parallel passage in Is 2:2 has the
> first participle
> preceding the yiqtol. Generally I interpret this periphrastic as
> clearly placing the durative concept of the participle in future
> time and a distribution of the yiqtol of HfYfH over both
> participles [hence "compound"]. (I could be all wet here, but I
> don't think so. We see a
> similar construction in Ex 26:3. Of course, I would have liked
> to have seen a qatal + participle in Ex 36:10, but there's a
> wayyiqtol instead.) My question: Can a periphrastic
> construction have the participle *precede* the "helping verb," as
> appears to be the case in Is 2:2? If so, what is the
> significance? Is it focussing (or, to use Bryan's terminology,
> topicalizing) the activity expressed by the participle?
>
> Also, in the Micah passage, for this to be periphrastic, we have
> the verb and the first participle split by the subject. Now, I
> realize
> this is a common construction in Greek, but isn't it unusual in
> the Hebrew? What significance do you make of the Micah
> construction?
>

Many of you responded to another post on the cohortative form of
3rd-he verbs, and I thank you for that. (I'll admit that that
one *was* written with a small bit of an agenda, although it also
was an honest attempt to verify the identification of the form.
Bryan, you stole my thunder by the points you made that discourse
analysis clearly identified a form which was completely ambiguous
on word level, and still unclear on clause level.)

Any help on the periphrastic question would be appreciated.

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page