Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

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>