Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: Qatal, 1 Kings 11:1

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[4]: Qatal, 1 Kings 11:1
  • Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 12:34:26 -0500 (EST)



Thank you, Dave. I don't think that negatives make very good examples
here because of the irrealis type issues Bryan mentions separately.
But nor do I accept that they go against my argument. The negative of
"a present state resulting from a past action" is not "a present
non-state resulting from a past action" but "a present non-state
resulting from a past non-action"; thus Manoah's wife had not given
birth and so was not in a state of having a child.

Re Solomon's propensity, I think you have misunderstood me. I earlier
rejected the understanding "Solomon had a propensity for foreign
women" in favour of "Solomon was in love with foreign women". But even
if )HB in this context does have the former meaning, it supports my
case: at some stage previous to the event time (even possibly from
birth), Solomon had acquired or developed a propensity for foreign
women, which was now continuing and showing itself in his actions.
Indeed the time at which the propensity developed is irrelevant.

On the wider issues of X + qatal, I wonder if we can move towards the
following understanding:

Clause 1, time T1
Clause 2, time T2, form X + qatal

In this case T2 is before T1 (possibly long before) or simultaneous
with it; but the action of clause 2 results in a state which continues
after T1.

Contrast with:

Clause 1, time T1
Clause 2, time T2, form wayyiqtol

In this case T2 is after T1.

Anything further from discourse analysis e.g. Bryan's discussions
about paragraph boundaries, is a refinement of this basic model.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Qatal, 1 Kings 11:1
Author: dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date: 04/02/1999 07:01

<snip>

I'm going to zero in on the example of Judg 13:2. For one thing, it's
clearly a hendiadys, expressing the same thing in both positive and
negative ways, so it's hard to see how "she hadn't had any
children" can be before "she was childless." But more than that,
since the LO) clause says the same thing as the qatal clause, it's
difficult for me to see how one is "foreground" and one is
"background." Add to that the fact that being childless/not having
children can hardly be construed as a present result of a past action
(having unsuccessful sex? Sorry...) this is not a good example of
the principle being presented. Rather, it looks to me as though it
argues against it.

<snip>

...Solomon's propensity toward foreign women need not have existed
from eternity past; rather, if (as seems to be the case) it describes
a quirk of his personality, then it is stative. Chances are that even
he didn't know exactly when that preference developed, and it doesn't
matter...

<snip>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page