Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Moon-Ryul,

        I am sorry for not answering so far. I have not been in my office
for a few days (and I can't get my e-mail at home - I still live the
cave...)  I want also to tell you and the other people on the list that I
am going home (Israel) for the whole summer, so as from Tuesday this week I
won't have access to my e-mail. So if I don't answer it is not because I
choose not to.

>Dear Galia, I enjoyed reading your book, The Semantics of
>Aspect and Modality. I tried to apply your theory of the
>progressive (qotel) and the perfect (qatal) to Jer 26:4-6.
        I am so glad. Thank you. Recall, however, that the corpus I did my
research on was the books attributed to the First Temple period, and only
the prose parts of those book.  Yet, one of the projects I am dreaming to
persue is to apply the theory to the later periods of the language, and
maybe to poetry to which Jer belongs for being prophecy.  However, let me
see if I am capable to do that now superficially on your example.

>
>Let me quote the verses (with a free translation):
>
>4 If ye will not hearken unto me,
>to walk in my law, which (a) I have set before you,
>5 to hearken unto the words of my servants the prophets,
>whom I (b)***am repeatedly sending unto you***,
>(c) even rising early and sending [them],
>(d)** but ye have not hearkened ***,
>6 then will I make this house like Shiloh.
>
>1) The phrase (b) is a translation of participle sholeach.
        That is how I understand it, too, in this context. However, while
this is the form used in Modern Hebrew for habituals, this is not the form
used in BH, at least not in the books Gen-Kgs from the First Temple period.

>(c) is a translation of absolute infinitives.
>I would say that the (a), (b), (c), and (d) have
>the same reference time, the time of speaking.
        It looks like it. It also makes sense within the framework I
suggest for the First Temple books.
>I take the participle clause (b) to describe habitual
>state that holds at the reference time.
        See my comment above.
>
>2) The phrase (d) is a translation of "w+lo+shmaoutem"
>(x+gatal). I would take phrase (d) to describe background
>situation that holds at the reference time. That is,
>the people have not heard the prophets until the reference
>time. They are urged to hear the prophets, which they have
>not heard so far.
        I am not sure what you mean by background. Yes, negative clauses
are considered background (Labov, Reinhart and others). The question is
why, temporally speaking. In this case it seems that the "not listening"
happens, so to speak, at the same time when the prophets speak. This makes
it share the same R-time. I have devoted a few words about negation in my
book, but I was not able to get to far with explaining it in terms of
temporality.
>
>What do you think of my decisions?
        Thank you for sharing your analysis with me.

Galia

>Respectfully,
>Moon-Ryul Jung
>Assistant Professor
>Dept of Computer Science
>Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea
>
>
>Respectfully
>Moon-Ryul Jung
>Assistant Professor, Dept of Computer Science, Soongsil Univ,
>Seoul, Korea
>
>
>
>---
>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.