Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Galia wrote:
[sorry I couldn't find anything to snip without mutilating the context]
> 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.

It wouldn't always have a yiqtol; there are some examples of )IM 
with a qatal, such as Gen 38:9 )IM BF) and Exod 22:3 )IM 
ZFR:XFH to name just a couple  I haven't looked closely enough to 
determine when yiqtol is used and when qatal is used, however.  I 
chose these two examples because the first is habitual and the 
second is not; however, I wonder if there might be some tense 
considerations here.  In any case, I agree that )IM + yiqtol is at 
least as likely.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.