Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

>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:



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

Dear Peter,

We have both given our opinions regarding hab 1.5-11 and translated some of
the verses, and Paul has promised to give his opinion. So now it is up to
the other listmembers to make up their minds. I would just  make a few
comments in connection with your words above.

Your words about begging the question are hardly justified.  Aside from
Accadian which has no suffix-form (I do not count permansive/stative), the
other Semitic languages have prefix-forms and suffixforms.  The same is
true with Hebrew, YIQTOL  and WAYYIQTOL  are prefix-forms, and QATAL and
WEQATAL are suffix-forms. It is methodologically sound as a first step to
assume that the semantic difference in Hebrew is between the prefix-form
and the suffix-form, as is the case in the cognate languages. As a second
step, we have to take a look at the WA- and WE- prefixes and ask about
their nature. I am not aware of any study which has given evidence that
these prefixes are anything but the conjunction WE/WA (althoug some would
say that the YY-element connected with WA is "something"- but still no
evidence.

You turn the situation upside down when you say that I beg the question
because 1, until the opposite is proved, assume that all prefixforms have
the same semantic meaning (I exclude modality). It is you who have the onus
of proof!  You must show how the conjunction WE + QATAL can change the
meaning to the very opposite of QATAL  standing alone, or show that WE  is
something other than a bare conjunction. And similarly, you must show how
the conjunction WA (+another element which you must identify) + YIQTOL can
change the meaning to the very opposite of YIQTOL  standing alone.  As long
as this is not done, it is methodologically sound to assume that the line
of demarcation goes between prefix-forms and suffix-forms.

As an answer to your question above, I claim that tense (=a
grammaticalization of location in time") is non-existent in the Hebrew
verbal system. When you claim at the same time that WAYYIQTOL is preterite
and that the forms in Habbakuk perhaps were corrupted, you get two problems:

1) I am not aware of any Bible translation which translates all the
WAYYIQTOLS  of the Bible with past tense, or of a scholar who claims that
this can or should be done. Those who know the Hebrew text well acknowledge
that there are a good many WAYYIQTOLs with non-past meaning (between 2 and
10 percent). Waltke/O'Connor, 460 asks: "How can forms each of which
"represent" all three English major tenses have a primarily temporal
value?" Have you, or will you, for instance, translate all WAYYIQTOLS  with
past tense? If you do not, you ought to use the context as the deciding
factor and let it overrule what you believe is the "semantic" meaning of
WAYYIQTOL. And then you have a tense which is not a tense but only a "time".

2) The most common way to avoid the problem with all the non-past
WAYYIQTOLS is to claim that they are wrongly pointed. But this is to kill
the goose that lays the golden egg. All agree that the Masoretes were
extremely careful in their work; they could not dream of changing the
smallest letter of the consonant text. The basis for their pointing was
what they heard in the synagogue, and because there is no trace of a
difference between WAYYIQTOL  and WEYIQTOL before the Masoretes, the very
foundation of your view is that this difference that you believe were found
in the autographs somehow was preserved and where articulated in the
recitation in the synagogue. In view of how the Masoretes worked, it is
impossible to believe that they erred in the pointing in about 5% of the
WAYYIQTOLS and 5% of the WEYIQTOLS, in addition to a wrong stress in about
20 percent of the WEQATALS. Based on the evidence, they could harly err at
all! You cannot have it both ways: if the synagogue was the source, we must
expect very few errors; because we find so many errors (if the traditional
view is correct) the synagogue cannot be the source of the difference.

Regarding WEQATAL, how will you explain Isaiah 2:11? First we find a QATAL
with future meaning, and then follows a WEQATAL.  The WE of the second
QATAL, is it a bare conjunction which is written to coordinate the two
paralell clauses, or does it have any transforming force? And what about
the WE of the second QATAL, is it a simple conjunction or something else?



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo