Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[5]: Jos 14-21 (was die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth))

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[5]: Jos 14-21 (was die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth))
  • Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 10:26:04 -0400


Dear Rolf,

When I mentioned in passing that Ugaritic had a past tense YIQTOL
form, I was relying mainly on what you wrote on 28 May, message with
subject "Re: force of conjunctions (was die Flucht..)":

Regarding question 1, it is possible that the YIQTOL-part of
WAYYIQTOL *alone* can account for the past meaning of WAYYIQTOL
in narratives, as is the case in Ugaritic. T.L. Fenton, 1963,
"The Ugaritic Verbal System", doctoral thesis, Oxford, found that
yqtl in Ugaritic is the normal narrative form in literary texts,
and sometimes this form is found with enclitic "u". He found 561
examples of yqtl with past meaning, 70 as past continuous, and
191 with future meaning. I.D. Marcus, 1971, "Aspects of the
Ugaritic Verb in the Light of Comparative Semtitic Grammar",
Ph.D. diss. Columbia univ. USA and D.H. Madvig, 1966, "A Grammar
of the Royal Assyrian Annals of the Sargonid Dynasty", Ph.D
diss., Brandeis univ. USA, confirm that yqtl is the normal
narrative form in Ugaritic.

Please stop trying to score points by finishing your post with a
question for which you know the answer mush better than I do. If you
do not allow me to argue that the Ugaritic YIQTOL was a past tense,
please avoid using the same argument in your own postings. It is clear
to me from Fenton's statistics that by your criteria YIQTOL in
Ugaritic is NOT a past tense. But if so, your argument to Paul fails
just as much as mine to you.

In general in science, if someone applies a method (especially one
which is not widely accepted) and it gives counter-intuitive results,
then they should look again at the appropriateness of the method. Of
course the counter-intuitive results may be correct, but the method
may also be flawed. I think that may be the case with your method,
which seems to assume a purity and uniformity not found in real human
languages. As Prof. Niccacci just wrote, what is needed is "close
attention to the text and accurate comparison more than speculation
and general linguistics". I think it might be instructive to apply
your methods to living Semitic languages, e.g. colloquial Arabic,
modern Aramaic, even modern Hebrew, and then compare the results with
native speaker intuition. You may find some surprises.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[4]: Jos 14-21 (was die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth))
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 31/05/1999 04:47


<snip>

The first question we have to ask when we start to investigate the
possibilities you mention is: Those who "found" this old apocopated preterite
in Ugaritic, Accadian and elsewhere, did they systematically differentiate
between preterite (grammaticalized past tense) and past meaning? If they did
not, their claim of seeing a preterite is suspect. Did they make such a
distinction, Peter?



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of oslo




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




  • Re[5]: Jos 14-21 (was die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth)), peter_kirk, 06/01/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page