Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi John,
You asked:
> 
> A methodological question - how can we determine which of us
> is right, if we both think we have models which can explain
> the data?  Can we propose a hypothetical sentence or a
> paragraph or comparison of two descriptions of the same
> event that, if we found it in BH, we could answer this
> question?  Can anyone else help us on this?
> 

An idea:  Sequence and perfectivity are inseperable.  A verb form's
perfectivity creates sequence because perfectivity makes visible an entire
situation, beginning, duration, and most significantly, END.  In order to
create a sequence of events, each successive event's end must be visible. 
The following sentence is perfective:  John ate a piece of pie.  The
following is imperfective:  John was eating a piece of pie.  The first
sentence includes the completion of the situation, and the second only
provides an unbounded (at the end) duration.  We can test the two sentences
for perfectivity by adding the phrase, "...but he didn't finish it" and
judge if it's still English.  How do they strike you:

a.  John ate a piece of pie, but he didn't finish it.
b.  John was eating a peice of pie, but he didn't finish it.

I would think you find (a) problematic, perhaps not even English.  Another
example is John built a house vs. John was building a house.  The examples
work because we know that eating a piece of pie or building a house has a
end boundary, so that adding "...but he didn't finish it" fights with our
understanding of the perfectivity of the situation.  Another example is
John walked to the store vs John was walking to the store.  The test would
be to add "...but he didn't arrive."  The point is that taking away the end
point from a perfective clause creates impossible language.  

The problem is with the Hebrew Bible we have only *possible* language.  We
don't have the chance in a dead language to probe for the impossible. 
Here's the hypothetical BH I would put before a native speaker of BH to
test whether the wayyiqtol is inherently perfective and sequential:

vayyibneh $lomoh 'et habayit velo' calah 'oto
and as a control I'd also substitute a participle boneh for the wayyiqtol.

If this hypothetical native speaker of BH would simply tell me tov o lo'
tov it would help so much.  If my wayyiqtol sentence is good BH, then
wayyiqtol is neither perfective nor (I imagine) sequential.  If the
sentence sounds stupid to him, then perfectivity must be inherent to the
form.  Personally, I think the wayyiqtol sentence would sound stupid to
him.  What do you think?

Now look at real BH, 1 Ki 6:9 

vayiben 'et habayit vay:kalehu

Does it blow away the perfectivity of wayyiqtol or the sequentiality of
wayyiqtol?  Maybe.  I think it's counter-evidence.  "John built the house,
and then he finished it" doesn't sound like good English. But the
counter-example is weakened a bit by the possibility that it is hendiadys. 
Even in English, although "John built and finished the house" sounds a bit
weird in isolation, it might fly in a context in which one wants to
emphasize that the end point of the activity is reached.  That is just the
kind of emphasis I think the writer is achieving in 1 Ki 6:9.

Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)