Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dave wrote:
>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.

        Yes, this is one of the problems I don't know how to tackle. A
famous example which I mention in my book (ex. 102  on p. 158) is Gen.
43:9, where the verb in the if-clause is in qatal. The very same condition
is given in yiqtol in 44:32. The line Comrie suggested to account for the
difference is in terms of degree of hypothecality. But then, how do we
explain examples like the ones you mentioned?  By the way, note that the
conditional in Gen. 38:9 open with WHAYA, which has the form of wqatal,
however it does not serve as a clause.
>---
>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.