Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk  wrote:

>Interesting statistics. But I don't think they back up Rolf's case.
>Let us look at how many of the cases show a fundamental semantic
>difference between the parallel sentences, according to Rolf's theory
>and an alternative.
>
>Rolf's theory, if I understand correctly, makes an essential division
>between qatal/weqatal on one side and yiqtol/weyiqtol/wayyiqtol on the
>other. On this theory 24+4+6+5+11 = 50 doublets show a semantic
>distinction and only 7+2 = 9 do not. This does not seem to tie up well
>with Rolf's assumption that most of the doublets have the same
>meaning; rather it suggests that in the great majority of doublets the
>change of verb form was made in order to change the meaning of the
>text. That seems unlikely!
>
>On the other hand, if we follow a four-component model, we can very
>approximately identify wayyiqtol with qatal, and weqatal and weyiqtol
>with yiqtol. Perhaps the Chronicler preferred qatal to wayyiqtol and
>that is the source of many of the differences. On this theory
>24+4+some of 11 = between 29 and 38 show no great semantic difference
>and 6+7+2+5+some of 11 = between 21 and 30 show significant semantic
>difference. This is at least less inconsistent with Rolf's assumption.
>A refined model taking into account word order might well reduce the
>number of doublets where there is a real difference in meaning to a
>very small number including the particular case in question, where the
>difference may go back to misunderstanding of the unpointed text and
>perhaps other matters such as textual corruption.
>
><long snip>
>
> For instance, in the 470 verses in BH which are doublettes, I found the
>following differences:
>24 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and qatal in the doublette.
>4 examples of yiqtol  in one verse and weqatal in the doublette.
>6 examples of yiqtol in one verse and qatal in the doublette.
>7 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and yiqtol in the doublette.
>2 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and weyiqtol in the doublette (one is
>our example).
>5 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and a participle or an infinitive in
>the doublette.
>11 examples of yiqtol in one verse and a weqatal, infinitive or participle
>in the doublette.
>
>In none of these situations is it evident that a change of time setting is
>the reason for the choice of different verbs.

Dear Peter,

Sorry, but you have completely misunderstood my position; perhaps I have
not stated it well enough in the past.  The greatest flaw in your reasoning
above is the use of the expression "fundamental semantic difference"
several times without defining it, evidently with a meaning which does not
fit with my distinction between "semantic meaning" and "conversational
pragmatic implicature".

Let me illustrate my position with a comparison between two doublettes:
Is. 37:15 "And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD:"
2Kings 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said:"
The verses have a slightly different wording, and as far as verbs are
concerned, Isaiah uses lemor and 2 Kings uses wayyomer. What is the reason
for the use of a wayyiqtol in one passage and an infinitive in the other? A
semantic or a pragmatic reason? I suppose that nobody would claim there is
a semantic difference between the verses or that an infinitive is
semantically equal to a wayyiqtol. The reason for the different forms is
definitely pragmatic, i.e. there is enough similarity in the " domains of
meaning" of the infinitive and the wayyiqtol that both can be used in a
past context to convey about the same meaning by the use of a verb which is
(+durative) and (+dynamic).

And similarly with the other mentioned differences in the doublettes: When
two different forms are used in passages where the context does not
indicate a difference in meaning, the "domains of meaning" of the two forms
must overlap one another to the extent that both forms can be used with
about the same sense. And this is my greatest complaint against a model
supposed to explain meaning and which is based upon discourse analysis:
pragmatics is confused with semantics. The 24 examples of wayyiqtol in one
passage and qatal in the doublette do not prove that wayyiqtol and qatal
are semantically similar more than the 6 examples of yiqtol in one passage
and qatal in the other. But it shows that even though aspects are
different, they also have similarities, and that they in many cases can be
used interchangeably.

However, the supposed opposition between yiqtol/weyiqtol and wayyiqtol must
be viewed differently from the opposition yiqtol/qatal because the last
mentioned opposition is orthographic while the first mentioned opposition
is not (in unpointed texts weyiqtol and wayyiqtol  are completely identical
orthographically speaking). Because the supposed opposition between
yiqtol/weyiqtol and wayyiqtol is non-orthographic and is based upon the
function of the forms, we must demand that a difference of function is
consistently followed throughout the Bible. The 67 examples of weyiqtols
and more than 500 examples of yiqtols with past meaning are therefore much
stronger evidence *against* a four-component model with wayyiqtol and qatal
representing past tense than the thousands of wayyiqtols and qatals with
past meaning are *fo*r such a model.

Let me pose a challenge to you based on a comparison of Psalm 18 and 2
Samuel 22 where we find the following differences:

(1) 6 examples of wayyiqtol in 2 Samuel 22 and yiqtol in Psalm 18 (vv
7,12,16,39 (2),41,)
(2) 2 examples of yiqtol in 2 Samuel 22 and wayyiqtol in Psalm 18 (vv 14,44).
(3) 1 example of wayyiqtol in 2 Samuel 22 and weyiqtol in Psalm 18 (v 38)
(4) 1 example of qatal in 2 Samuel 22 and wayyiqtol in Psalm 18 (v 1)

Please tell me whether the wayyiqtols and yiqtols in the doublettes and the
wayyiqtol and weyiqtol are semantically identical or not, and if this is
evidence against a four-component model.

Verse 38 illustrates well that the choice between yiqtol/weyiqtol and
wayyiqtol is not semantic but pragmatic:
2Sam. 22:38 "I pursued (yiqtol+cohortative) )my enemies and destroyed them
(wayyiqtol), and did not turn (yiqtol) back until they were consumed
(infinitive c.)."
Psa. 18:37 "I pursued (yiqtol)  my enemies and overtook them (weyiqtol) ;
and did not turn back (yiqtol) till they were consumed (infinitive c.)."
In 2 Samuel we have a wayyiqtol with past meaning. Then we have a situation
which are seen scores of times and which accounts for the use of yiqtol as
the next verb instead of a wayyiqtol (in the same past context): An element
comes before the second verb, in this case a negative particle. If there
was no word element before the second verb, a wayyiqtol would have been the
most natural choice; with the word element a yiqtol is chosen. This
suggests that there is no semantic difference between yiqtol and wayyiqtol.
I would also appreciate if you could explain why Psalm 18 uses a weyiqtol
in v 38 instead of a wayyiqtol.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo