Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Thank you, Alviero for your answers. But there seems to be some typo. Let 
me
also see if I have understood you.  

 On 05/31/99, "Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>" 
wrote:
> On  05/29/99 (Re: die Flucht ins Prasens, Alviero) Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > Alviero,
> > What is the ground for calling welo+gatal "negative wayyiqtol"?
> > Moon
> >
> 
> Dear Moon,
> 
> The affirmation that welo'+qatal is a negative wayyiqtol is based on a
> number of observations.
> =46irst, this is the only negative structure for the past in BH; 

it is used
> to negate not only wayyiqtol but also qatal and (waw-)x-qatal. (Note that
> the waw is always optional in this construction; it does not affect its
> syntactic function in any way.)

[Moon]
What is this "it", which negates wayyiqtol, qatal, and x-qatal? Is it 
"lo'"?

> 
> Second, x-qatal is negated with x+lo'+qatal, i.e. the negation lo' remains
> tied to the verbform; no X element is not interposed in between. See e.g.
> *we'eprayim l=F4' h=F4r=EEsh* in Judg. 1:29; also see 1:30, 31, and 33. 
> (Con=
> trast
> 1:27 *welo' h=F4r=EEsh menashsheh*, which is a negative wayyiqtol.)
> 
> Therefore, if we find welo'+qatal inside a string of wayyiqtols, we are
> pretty sure that its positive counterpart is wayyiqtol because, on one
> side, initial qatal is not used in historical narrative and, 

[Moon]

You are saying that welo'+qatal cannot be the negative of initial qatal in
historical narrative, because initial qatal is NOT used in historical 
narrative.
Right?

on the other
> side, x-qatal is negated with welo'+qatal as already mentioned.
> 

[Moon] Do you mean "x-qatal is negated with x+lo'+qatal"?

> A clear case of lo'+qatal as negative counterpart of initial qatal in
> direct speech is *lo'-laqax yiSra'el* in Judg. 11:15 (contrasting 1:13).
> Here, *lo'-laqax yiSra'el* is clearly a negative initial qatal because a
> wayyiqtol is not found at the beginning of direct speech (it is only used
> as continuation form) and because the negative counterpart of x-qatal would
> be **yiSra'el lo'-laqax*.
> 
[Moon]
In sum, do you mean that 
In direct speech, lo'+qatal + X is the negation of initial qatal, whereas
it is the negation of wayyiqtol in historical narrative?

BUT, from the view point of logic, negative sentences express a kind of 
state, the state in which something is NOT true. For example, "he did not
come" means that it was not true that he came. In other words, "he did not
come" does not refer to a concrete event, but to the state in which such
an event did not happen. So, negative statements cannot "move the reference 
time forward", but it should use the currently established reference time 
like ordinary qatal.  Your theory that welo'+qatal is mainline and moves
the RT forward. How would you explain it in the face of the general logic?

Respectfully,
Moon-Ryul Jung
Assitant Professor
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea