Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

I am quite happy for the tentative balloon which I sent up to be shot 
down. But before the last spot of hot air leaks out, let me explain 
some of my reasoning.

Others on this list have strongly and repeatedly argued against the 
theory which Randall is putting forward below and in favour of the 
proposition that wayyiqtol is simply waw plus yiqtol, and that the 
"indicative"-jussive distinction in yiqtol is of late phonological 
origin. This part of their argument has been fairly convincing to me, 
and no-one on this list has fully refuted it, though Randall has 
tried. On the other hand, those people's explanations of the meaning 
of wayyiqtol in Hebrew narrative as we have it now has seemed very 
weak and based on a confusion of linguistic categories.

My suggestion is simply an alternative argument to the weak part of 
those people's argument, which relies on the strong part of their 
argument. It is interesting that the main attacks on my hypothesis 
have been on that strong part of the argument of others that I have 
taken as (provisionally) given, rather than the part of the hypothesis 
that I have added. It is also interesting that those whose arguments 
are being attached are now being silent. Well, maybe they are too 
busy. But if they still stand by their theories they should be the 
ones to answer what Randall has written below.

Except that is for Randall's last paragraph below. Thanks for the book 
tip. Yes, this is all hypothetical, as I have tried to make clear, but 
then were participles in regular use as a present tense in BH times? I 
accept that they were used as such, but surely to speak of a "present 
tense" is somewhat anachronistic. Well, perhaps that makes my whole 
hypothesis anachronistic. Hiss... another hole in the balloon! ;-(

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: More on wayyiqtol-resent
Author:  ButhFam AT compuserve.com at internet
Date:    20/04/1999 07:47


> . . . My tentative hypothesis would be that when the present tense was 
used as historic

i suppose this means that you are claiming that both "yaqtul" (singular) 
was 'present' and "yaqtulu" (singular) was 'present'?
and in hebrew would that mean that
vayYAshov 'and he return*d' and
yaSHOV 'let him return' and
yaSHUV 'he will return, used to return' 
were all "present" at one time?

> this became specifically indicated by fronting it in the sentence and 
> linking it with the waw conjunction - this explains why the form
> without the conjunction (yiqtol) is not mixed with wayyiqtol. At some 
> time in the development of the language, I would suggest, only
> wayyiqtol and not yiqtol alone became acceptable for "historic
> present", and so qatal came to be used for cases where the verb could 
> not be fronted

the above sounds a bit like some arab grammarians i've heard who try to 
explain their "lam yaktub" 'he did not write' construction with special 
psychological states, without relating it to west semitic yaqtul. "lo 
dubbim velo ya`ar", as they say here.

"so qatal came ..."
yet yiqtol is used in narrative for repetitive, open-ended past 
descriptions.

> . . .And I am talking about a time when participles
> were not in regular use as a present tense, hence no participles.

which would mean you've been describing a hypothetical etymology of 
proto-hebrew,
but not the synchronic hebrew narrative of the bible.
not that i am expressing agreement with the etymologies/hypotheses you 
listed, or disagreement, here.
maybe you'll want to read rainey 1986 in Hebrew Studies, if you haven't 
seen it.

braxot
randall buth