Biblical Hebrew Forum

[mjoseph <mjoseph AT terminal.cz>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:

>The poem in Deu 32 seems to have evidence of an archaic Hebrew system

Bryan, Bryan, I'm really disappointed in you. Here I thought you were an 
intelligent, well-educated person, and now you're holding to the theory 
that there is "an archaic Hebrew system" in some places in the Bible. 
Haven't you learned yet that the whole Bible was written within a span of 
half an hour sometime in the second half of the second century BC?

>in which two prefixed verb forms are often difficult to distinguish.

Are you referring to the two which Waltke and O'Connor call the long and 
short prefix forms?

>Prefix
>(a) is sometimes shortened or apocopated, depending usually on the verbal
>root, and tends to come clause-initially.

Any stats on how often it is clause-initial?

>It has the significance of a
>preterit or modal, a distinction which, how ever significant, is not always
>possible to determine.  The other prefixed form (b) is longer, as compared
>to the first, with certain roots and tends to come in the second position
>of a clause.

Same question.

>It has the value of a past imperfective (for repetitive or
>habitual activity in the past) or a non-past (i.e., present generic or
>future).  Conveniently, this confusing picture is *usually* simplified for
>us in prose as follows:
>
>(a) with preterit value manifests as a wayyiqtol
>(a) with a modal value manifests clause-initially in direct speech only
>(b) with a past habitual, repetitive value manifests clause-medially
>outside of direct speech only.
>(b) with a non-past meaning manifests clause-medially inside direct speech
>only

Interesting. Is this developed anywhere?

>Perhaps Deu 32 is an old poem or perhaps the poet adopted an old syntax
>with which he was still familiar.  In either case, re your particular
>query,  in v. 38 and the two prefixed forms yo'kelu and yi$tu, it seems
>that context does not necessitate any reading of the prefixed form.

I assume you mean, "any *particular* reading"? After all, they are prefix 
conjugations of some sort, right?

>So lets
>enjoy them all at once!  My translation:  "Where are their gods?--some
>rock--they are hidden in it...
>
>...which ate... it drank
>...which eats... it drinks
>...which intends to eat... it intends to drink."

The New Amplified Version. I might accept this as an explanation, but it 
would be hard to offer it as a translation; I'd think that we could pick 
the most likely rendering from the context (I'd go with your first line, 
based of the translation of XASAYW. as a preterite).  Of course, the verb 
"drink" is a plural, too.

>Poetically, we limit ourselves in a translation, and then cannot enjoy the
>scrumptious ambiguity in the verb forms.

I would question whether the ambiguity is inherent in the form of the 
verb, or whether it results rather from the fact that we aen't reading 
the poem as a native speaker could. For what it's worth, my opinion is 
the latter, unless the author was *intentionally* introducing a double 
meaning into his work.


yochanan bitan adds:

>one of the normal functions of yiqtol is frequentive in the past.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same as the following line from Bryan's 
post:

>(b) with a past habitual, repetitive value manifests clause-medially
>outside of direct speech only.

I must be reading the wrong textbooks, because I've never run into this 
(well, at least until this verse in Deuteronomy). I translate yiqtols as 
futures or modals, and they makes sense. Is this idea widely accepted, 
something new, or just something that has managed to elude me thus far 
(not that that is particularly difficult to do)? If this (yiqtol as past 
frequentive) is widely accepted, can someone tell me if it is common? Is 
it particular to poetry?

>vayyiqtol does NOT mark frequentive.

Thus, it is to be translated as a simple past, as if it were a 
"waw-conversive"?

Mark Joseph

____________________________
There are two kinds of fools:
The first says, "This is old, therefore it is good."
The other says, "This is new, therefore it is better."
______________________________________________________