Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

Many thanks for your detailed response. See my interspersed comments 
below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: qumran (was ruth)
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet
Date:    18/05/1999 17:32


Peter Kirk wrote:
<snip>

Dear Peter,

<snip>

Honestly speaking, I see little use in starting an analysis by  classifying 
the text in "narrative" and "discourse", and further in "hortatory 
discourse" etc (to see verbal patterns, however, the categories are 
useful). The writers were not aware of such categories and did not arrange 
their texts and choose his verbs in the light of such categories.  However, 
the writers arranged their text on the basis of emphasis (e.g. "I say." 
versus "It is I who say."), on the basis of thematic roles; the semantic 
relationship between the agent and the patient (e.g. the agent acts on the 
patient, the patient is acted upon by the agent, the agent lets another 
agent have a part in the action, two agents act upon one another, The agent 
leads the patient through the end of an action and into a state, the agent 
leads the patient into a state.). Further did the writers arrange their 
text on the basis of theme/rheme (old and new information) and on the basis 
of definiteness and indefiniteness (mass/count nouns, singular/plural, 
article/no article) and on the basis of mood, etc.

PK: In general I agree with you here. I would suggest that the writers 
had a subconscious awareness (without clear classifications) both of 
discourse type and of such matters as thematic roles. It is our job as 
analysts to disclose such subconscious distinctions, which may vary in 
usefulness for actually understanding the text.

The basic tool I use when I translate is simply oldfashioned grammatical 
analysis. I take the stems into account to find the thematic roles, look at 
the verbs in the light of the three semantic categories underlying the 
vendlerian categories, dynamicity, durativity, and telicity (which 
particularly is important to differentiate between stative and fientive 
verbs), look at the word order to fine theme/rheme, at the verb form and the 
context to find mood and at the context to fix the time setting. I will use 
Habbakkuk as an example.

PK: So are you ruling out looking at the verb form to help to fix the time 
setting? Is this necessary?

What is the setting of Hab 1:5-11? We find the following indications in vv 
5,6: The prophet speaks about a work which will occur "in their days", and 
HINNE followed by a participle always refer to the future. Thus we have a 
prophecy about the future, and we expect to find verbs with future meaning 
(predicted actions) and present meaning (characteristics).  We cannot 
exclude that verbs with past meaning can occur in such a setting, but that 
would be unusual and we would expect clear markers in such a case.

PK: I see clear markers here in the shift in Hebrew verb paradigm. I 
am sure that it signals something, perhaps a shift to a temporal 
sequence if not actually from future to past.

 In
v 11 we find the adverb )FZ which must refer to a particular time/situation 
either in the past or in the future. There is nothing in the context 
suggesting a past reference, and because the whole setting is future, we 
must conclude that it is future

PK: No! If (speaking in general terms) we find a past tense verb in a 
setting and context which is future, we must conclude that either an 
error was made (as possibly here WEYIQTOL has been corrupted to 
WAYYIQTOL) or there is an otherwise unexpected shift of reference 
time. Of course that applies only the verb form is a tense. But the 
verb form must indicate something, and it continues to indicate that 
something (its semantic meaning rather than its pragmatic implicature) 
even if the context gives no support.

 (Interestingly, "The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew", 1993, D. J.A. 
Clines, I, 167,168, uses Hab 1:11 as an example of the future meaning of  
)FZ followed by a QATAL. another example is Isaiah 33:23.) The words of v 5 
that you will not believe even if it is told, also excludes a past meaning 
of v 11.

PK: It is far from clear (without looking in detail at the verb forms) 
how far the prediction extends. NIV for example seems to indicate that 
the prediction goes no further than "I am raising up the Babylonians", 
for everything after that (up to v.11) is translated as present.

 The task, therefore is to find the predicative verbs with future meaning 
and the verbs describing the Chaldeans with present (gnomic) meaning. I 
suggest the following translation:



9. all of it comes (YIQTOL) for violence.
the trust of their faces is forward  (NOMINAL), 
and it gathers (WAYYIQTOL) captives like the sand.
10. As for its part, it will scoff (YIQTOL) at kings, 
and princes shall be a scorn to it (NOMINAL).
It will laugh (YIQTOL) at every stronghold,
heap up (WAYYIQTOL) dirt and capture (WAYYIQTOL) it. 
11. Then it will pass by (QATAL)  like a wind,
it will transgress (WAYYIQTOL) and become guilty (WEQATAL); 
this its power is god to it (NOMINAL).


Verse 7 starts with a nominal (stative) clause, which indicates a 
*description* of the Chaldean nation. It seems that this description 
continues to the end of v 8, and I would translate these two verses by 
English present. Because of the definite reference of the action in v 11, 
indicated by the adverb, I use future from this point and to the end of v 
11.
The second clause of  verse 9 is lexically difficult. I would have a 
footnote here in a translation.
Its tense is indicated by the preceding clause and the WAYYIQTOL in the 
third clause must be translated by the same tense.  To translate this 
WAYYIQTOL with past tense because WAYYIQTOL usually is used with past 
meaning in narratives, is in my view to do violence to the Hebrew text.

PK: In my view it is to do violence to the Hebrew text to translate 
WAYYIQTOL (which in my view is a past tense) as if it is synonymous 
with a quite different verb form.

 The three clauses of the verse are syntactically coordinated, (explicitly 
expressed by the waw of the WAYYIQTOL), they are semantically coordinated 
(they express three similar characteristics of the Chaldeans), and they 
must therefore have the same tense. There is absolutely nothing in the 
context suggesting that the other WAYYIQTOLS, the QATAL and the WEQATAL 
have past meaning.

PK: I am not looking first at the context but at the verb forms, and 
then seeing how I can make sense of the passage if these verb forms 
have their usual meaning. One reason for doing this, let me remind 
you, is to examine your suggestion that this passage falsifies my view 
of WAYYIQTOL as a past tense. I conclude that it is possible, if 
arguably rather difficult, to understand the WAYYIQTOLs here as past. 
So your falsification is in doubt unless you can demonstrate that my 
suggestion is impossible, or even extremely unlikely, which I don't 
think you have succeeded in doing.

PK: Also, I did not suggest a past meaning for WEQATAL. I translated 
WAY.A(:ABOR in v.11 as "went on" (as NIV, or "passed on") rather than 
"transgress", and separated it (as in BHS as well as NIV) from the 
following W:)F$"M "they are guilty". As these two verbs have 
incompatible forms they are not likely to be in sequence.

-----

<snip>
PK: (Unfortunately I don't have time to look into this in detail)

.. For example, what is the difference between QATAL/WEQATAL used with 
future meaning and YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL used with future meaning?

PK: You continue to beg the question by presuming in advance some kind 
of identity between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL when most scholars consider 
them, on very good evidence, to be completely different in origin and 
meaning. You need to first demonstrate this identity before using it 
as an assumption in your analysis.

<snip>

..The described model can account for *any* finite verb form in the Bible, 
and there may be two reasons for this: Either the model is too vague, and 
therefore meaningless, because any datum can be accounted for, or it gives a 
true representation of the Hebrew verbal system.

PK: I still lean towards the former view of your model. It could be a true 
representation but also a vague and so useless one, equivalent to "all verbs 
are either past or present or future". I am open to being convinced that it 
has descriptive power. But a convincing argument would need to be free from 
some of the assumptions which you have been pursuing so far.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk