Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Mark, you wrote:

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

yup.

> 
> >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 comes clause-initially as often as the most used verb form in the Hebrew
Bible, the wayyiqtol.  The modal prefixed form comes clause-initially
enough for Revell ("The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose," 
HUCA, 1989) to claim that all clause-initial prefix forms are modal, and
all  clause-medial prefix forms (unless accompanied by a lexical marker of
modality such as 'al or na') are indicative.  I think Revell's second
generalization is a bit of an over-generalization--but who am I?  Niccacci,
"Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose" trans. Watson. Sheffield,
1990 also has the Revell idea (I'm not saying he got it from Revell), but
with more qualifications.  Neither Revell nor Niccacci is arguing, per se,
so no stats are givien.  I'd call their work more like describing.
 
> 
> >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.

same answer.

> 
> >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?

All in one place?  That's kind of a problem as far as I know.  Hetzron's
little article on Hebrew in the Comrie edited survey of world languages
lays it all out, if I remember correctly, as I did above minus the
distinction between narrator's text vs. direct speech  There's the Revell
article.  Also Niccacci's articles which outline the whole prose system in
which you *will* find an emphasis on narrator's text vs. direct speech:  
the work I mentioned above or "Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical
Hebrew Verb System in Prose" _Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers
of the Tilberg Conference, 1996_ ed. van Wolde. Brill, 1997.  But Niccacci
attempts to explain only the facts in the Bible, not the origin of the
forms as I suggest above.  As to the manner in which the "longer,"
clause-medial form is used only outside of direct speech (in prose sections
of the Bible) for repetitive, habitual activities, you may see Longacre,
"Weqatal Forms in BH Prose," _BH and Discourse Linguistics_ ed. Bergen.
S.I.L. 1994.  My as yet unpublished teaching grammar teaches the model as I
have described above.

> 
> >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?

yup, sorry for the lack of clarity.

> 
> >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."
> 
<noted and snipped>

> >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.

right.  *Ambiguity* is not a good choice of words on my part.  The ancient
probably knew just what is meant, and it may well mean all three things at
once.  If we were to ask the ancient scribe what the yiqtol form means I
could imagine him imitating with his hands the opening of blossom as if
from his heart while saying  "It just means action, change...a coming forth
of action, like a blossom or water from a spring.  Don't you see it?"

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)