Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)

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[6]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
  • Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:24:24 -0500 (EST)



My problem in more detail is as follows: Some people are insisting
that "wayyiqtol does not mean sequential" and "X-qatal does not mean
non-sequential". If so, how can they explain why in sequential
contexts one is generally used (97% say) and in non-sequential
contexts the other is used (at least 90% I am sure). Why? Is this free
stylistic variation? (Is that what is implied by "no semantic
difference"?) Probably not if the percentages are really like that
(though I accept that the 97% includes many uncertain cases). Is it a
question of fronting a component for topicalisation, with the choice
between qatal and wayyiqtol dependent on word order? Possibly, but why
such a high correlation with sequentiality? Perhaps you can
hypothesise another semantic distinction, and I wish you well in your
search. But I would be surprised if you can come up with something new
(rather than a refinement of the sequentiality distinction) which
explains things better than 97%.

If you are interested in analogies, I suppose I am at least very
roughly equating wayyiqtol with English past simple and Greek aorist,
and X-qatal with English past perfect and Greek pluperfect. I am sure
you can find many counter-examples to such identifications, but they
are perhaps a starting point. Now, in English, what is the difference
between past simple and past perfect, and how can we tell what it is?
Or to keep native speaker intuition out of the question, how about the
same question for NT Greek aorist vs. pluperfect? Suppose we come up
with a rule which explains the difference 97% of the time (counting
examples in the NT, or a wider corpus if you prefer) but to which
there are counter-examples. Do we have to say that such a rule (which
is probably the one in the textbooks) is invalid?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
Author: dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date: 10/02/1999 12:23


Peter,
> The problem I see with your sort of approach is that it explains
> nothing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In English we have a "simple"
past tense that is not marked for anything in particular; in Greek
we have the aorist, which is essentially the same thing; my
approach sees the WP as comparable (though not equivalent) to
this type of form. Please develop "explains nothing" in more detail?

At least you are trying to make some sort of syntactic
> distinction between wayyiqtol and X-qatal. Some contributors seem to
> be trying to say that there is no semantic difference between the
> different verb forms but all is a matter of pragmatics.

Yes. I assume thata different form must signal something, we're
just not sure what yet.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page