Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf,

Not a real response, but a couple of comments correcting potential 
misconceptions
suggested by your post.

Rolf Furuli wrote:

>  Think of Aviero's interpretation of Job 3:3 where he said that the process
> of being born was focussed opon, and the reason was of course that the verb
> is past and telic. If this view is possible in Job 3:3, and we assume that
> all wayyiqtols are yiqtols+and, it must also be possible to apply this
> interpretation to them, and then we get a chain of past events, one after
> the other, where a small part of the event or state is focussed upon

But the verb in Job 3:3 is *not* wayyiqtol, so grouping it with them while the
argument of their being simply "the same thing" is a bit premature, isn't it?

> And if that is not done, please stop using the
> phrase (which in this case must be empty) "But this is poetry" as a part of
> an explanation. A verb marked for past  tense is just as much past tense in
> poetry as in prose!

In the cases that I have commented on, and so noted, the verbs have again 
*not* been
wayyiqtol.  They have instead been yiqtol that have supposed or actual past 
meaning.
I recall one case that, as part of an acrostic, it appeared that the verb 
would have
normally been a wayyiqtol, but the waw would have not fit as the initial 
letter.  In
the Job 3:3 case, I stated in a private posting to you that I would have been 
more
comfortable if the yiqtol (which, by the way, is in a volitional clause 
wishing
something had happened to a day that was already past), that that yiqtol had 
been a
participle, but it isn't.  What I said exactly, "But he didn't, and this *is* 
poetry,
so other forces may have come into play here."   It only identifies another 
potential
source for the difference.

I have not seen this phrase used very often in these discussions, and I do 
not feel
that the uses that I have seen have been in any way stating that your 
questions are
not appropriate.  But the analysis of the breadth of adjustments that poetry 
can make
in the hebrew in order to maintain rhythm or vividness or whatever is also 
still very
much in a state of flux, so let's not dismiss its possibilitiy out of hand.

I agree with you that poetry does basically use the same grammatical forms. 
But, since
you are focussing on those cases where the actual form is different than what 
you
expected, you will have a higher incidence of people pointing out possible
contributing factors influencing the writer.  Why are you trying to ignore 
one of the
biggest potential influences, i.e., poetry, when it can be seen in every 
language that
I have dealt with (both indoeuropean and non-indoeuropean) that poetry *does* 
indeed
influence some changes in forms?

My 2¢ worth,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph