Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Galia Hatav <ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu>]

Dave wrote:
>Galia wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>> >Galia wrote:
>> >> Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Prof Jung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Dear Peter,
>> >> >> unitl I see a strong evidence for Galia's assumption that
>> >> >> wayyiqtol is different from English simple past (minus stative 
>> >> >> verbs),
>> >> >> I would agree to what you wrote below. But I think that in English
>> >> >> simple past clauses can continue past perfect clauses. Consider:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> a. John went into the florist shop.
>> >> >> b. He had promised mary some flowers.
>> >> >> c. She said that she wouldn't forgive him if he forgot.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clause a establishes the reference time for clause b.
>> >> >> The reference time of clause c is set to the event time
>> >> >> of clause b, which is before the reference time of clause b.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If this example can be acceptable to English speakers, then
>> >> >> we must say that simple past can continue past perfect.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, clearly it can.  And as Galia points out in her book, we know
>> >> >this from pragmatic considerations, not syntactic ones.  Examples
>> >> >such as these keep me believing that, while it's true that all
>> >> >features of the grammar - syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
>> >> >discourse frame and all the rest - have a hand in forming clauses (I
>> >> >avoid the term "sentence") and larger units, if we're going to make
>> >> >real progress in understanding the syntax of Hebrew verbs we have
>> >> >to keep them separate for purposes of study.  [climb down off
>> >> >soapbox]
>> >> >
>> >> >WRT the above clauses, I would suggest that Hebrew would have
>> >> >had the first one in a WP (wayyiqtol), the second with an x-qatal,
>> >> >and the third with another WP.  What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> >Dave Washburn
>> >>
>> >>   I agree, except that (c) has TWO clauses. The second one would be
>> >> in qatal.
>> >
>> >Hmm, now that you mention it, (c) has THREE clauses.  I agree
>> >that the second one (more or less indirect speech) would be in
>> >qatal, if by KIY, or possibly an infinitive clause if not.  Things are
>> >further muddied by the fact that it's a negated clause.  Your theory,
>> >if I understand it correctly, predicts that the third clause would be in
>> >yiqtol preceded by )IM.  That sounds good to me.
>> >
>> >Dave Washburn
>>
>>      Yes, (c) has THREE clauses; what was I thinking? Now what would I
>> predict for (c)? Gee, this is tough. I cannot recall an example of indirect
>> speech with a conditional. So let me first see how it would be with direct
>> speech.
>>      (c') She said: "If you (had) forgot(ten) I would not have forgiven
>> you."
>> Would you agree that (c') is the direct speech equivalent of (c)? So what
>
>Possibly.  Another possibility, one that I think fits the (admittedly
>limited) context a little more, is
>(c'') She had said, "If you forget I won't forgive you."
>
>> we have here is a counterfactual. Counterfactuals in BH are expressed
>> (usually) by qatal, and therefore I expect both clauses within the direct
>> speech to appear in qatal.  I don't recall an example of counterfactual
>> within indirect speech, but I would have to assume that in such case, too,
>> the verbs will be in qatal.
>
>If (c') is the direct-speech equivalent of (c), agreed.  If (c'') is the
>direct-speech equivalent, then we have a simple if-then condition.  If
>I follow the theory correctly, we would be looking at something like
>this for the latter:
>
>WAT.O)MER )IM $FKAXTF LO) )ESLAX
>
>i.e. WP - )IM + qatal Lo) + yiqtol
>
>Were the last clause not a negated clause, it would be possible for
>a weqatal to appear there, since it is often used as an apodosis.
>However, since these can't be negated, I would expect a yiqtol.
>What do you think?

        Why do you expect a qatal verb in the protosis? An indicative
conditional, i.e., a simple if-then condition, would have IM+yiqtol in the
protosis, unless it does not open the direct speech. In the latter case I
would expect  weqatal. As for the apodosis I agree, it would be in yiqtol.
>
>And of course, if your representation of the direct-speech equivalent
>is correct and mine isn't, all of the above is academic :-)
>Dave Washburn
>http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
>A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.