Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Your discourse analysis does not tell *why* all these
> different forms are
> used; the fundamental principle that a difference in morphology indicates
> a
> difference in meaning is completely ignored. And because you refuse
> to
> answer my question about your assumptions, whether semantic meaning
> exclusively is connected with the word form or whether it can be changed
> by
> the genre (thus not being semantic at all), any meaningful communication
> between us in this case is impossible. For those who realize that a
> discussion of theory is mandatory for a good practical result, I will
> take
> the subject a little further.
>  
Rolf,

I never said that a discussion of theory is not beneficial, although I do think "mandantory" may be too strong a word.  But please let me remind you of what you said on Jan 30:
 

> Thank you for answering my Joshua question. Before I give my comments I
> would like to hear your view of two questions.
>
> (1) (Extremely important). Can "genre" change the semantic meaning of a
> verb form? Wayyiqtol is either past tense, the perfective aspect, the
> imperfective aspect, or a blend of past tense and the perfective aspect.
> The meaning you ascribe to wayyiqtol (and yiqtol, qatal and weqatal) is it
> different in one genre compared with another?
 
At the time of reading and responding, I saw that question as an attempt
to force the conversation from the specifics about the passage to a general
discussion of theories (again!)  And, having reread it again in preparation
for this response, I still see the same agenda behind the question. 
Even now, in your supposed comments about the Joshua text, most of it is
not *about* the Joshua text.

You claim my response does not tell why the diffierent forms are used.  Actually, I did, because I clearly stated that that was how the Hebrews of that time treated such topics.  If you are asking why they treated such topics that way, then I would compare your question to why a word has one meaning in one context and another meaning in another.  Etymology is an interesting subject, and it *may* help in understanding the semantic range of a word, but I'm sure that even you would agree that most native speakers don't think through the complete etymology of a word before choosing it in a particular context.  They choose the word because, in that context, it is the word that carries the message that they are trying to express.  In a similar light, an "etymological-like" study for verb forms may give the breadth of the range of meaning of the form.  It may reveal why a form was originally used in a certain context.  But, by the time of the writing of the Tanakh, I would dare posit that most of those forms were already "formularized," that the writer used the form that he did because that's the form used in the specific context.

Since apparently you think my response was deficient, let me ask you:  What is *your* explanation for the variety of forms used?  If it is in your comments, I confess that I fail to see it.

As far as your comment of my not considering "static and fientic verbs," please note that, while I did not specifically mention those technical terms, I did clearly state:

> What we have in these descriptions of the borders of the tribal inheritances is
> imbedding of a genre rarely found in the Tanakh, a purely descriptive text that is
> non-sequential, non-agent oriented, and non-future (in fact, non-time oriented).
Now perhaps you can come up with an example of a fientic verb that is not
time-oriented, but, in my experience, I am hard put to see words used in
this way as expressing anything other than states.  If you did not
see this statement as saying what you claimed I failed to address, then
apparently what I thought was a very clear statement was not clear at all. 
Therefore, I am willing to accept the fault for an inadequate analysis.

Please forgive me for not addressing your Ezekiel passages on )MD, but I'm sure you can see that they do not relate, directly or even closely indirectly, to the understanding of the Joshua passages.

Hope this helps you understand my position and my previous posts,

Paul

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

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph