Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Good to hear from you, Dave,
You wrote:
<snip>

B.R.>> I do not think that lo' qatal is the
> > negative of wayyiqtol, at least not generally.  I would
say
> > that a negated proposition represents the irreal world
> > rather than the real as a wayyiqtol represents.
Although I
> > do not deny that a negated qatal can sometimes represent
an
> > event on the mainline, I generally consider the
construction
> > as irrealis and off-the-line and "stative."
>
D.W.> I've seen you mention this before, and it has
possibilities.  I'd be
> interested to hear more development about it.
Specifically, working
> from Galia Hatav's definition of modality, how does this
irrealis
> compare to/differ from other types of modality?

Galia explains modality in terms of the branching options
(for possible events) in a "possible world."  The
speaker/writer uses different types of modality to
manipulate his audience's perception of the branching
options.  Modal expressions can relate options as possible,
probable, obligatory, moral, etc.  I guess that in her view,
irrealis constructions that utilize a particle of negation
like lo' express that a particular branch is no longer an
option.  A construction lo' qatal is a fitting counterpart
for wayyiqtol if, as Galia is now considering, wayyiqtol
asserts the one true option (*actual* world) from within the
possible world.  BTW, Galia is away from the list for the
summer.

<snip>
>
>
> > Another point:  The traditions for how to translate the
BH
> > forms into English were already so firmly entrenched in
the
> > tradition created by the revered English (and other)
> > translations by the time comparative Semitics and modern
> > linguistics come on the scene, that we can hardly claim
that
> > comparative Semitics or modern linguistics are allowed
to
> > have a really unhampered
> > effect on *how* to translate BH.  What do you think?
>
> I've run into the same thing in some of my Greek exegesis.
When I
> presented my approach to Eph 5:18 back in 1983 at an ETS
> meeting, everyone agreed that it probably wouldn't catch
on
> because we were bucking 500 years of tradition.  For a
"modern"
> linguist, that can be quite frustrating.  The only way I
can think of to
> overcome this problem is to keep hacking away at it until
it sinks
> in, but I doubt that's the most effective approach.  Does
anybody
> have a better idea?

I'm going at it this way:  write a first year teaching
grammar that is more conditioned by the last thirty years of
research into BH rather than the last 1000 years of
tradition.  If the first year course gets off the ground, we
start writing the second year course.  The research comes
from the top down, but the new crop of translators and
exegetes have to be taught from the bottom up.

>
> > > If qatal is attributive, why would it necessarily be
> > durative - i.e. why couldn't
> > > *rats* mean "he was one that ran" rather than "he was
a
> > runner" (the first doesn't
> > > sound much different from a simple past tense)?
> >
> > I'm taking your question as being about translating the
> > qatal.  I think I mentioned before that an English "-er"
> > word does not necessarily express habit or repetitive
> > action.  One only needs to commit a single crime to be
> > rightly called a criminal.  So Cain was a murderER
having
> > killed once, his righteous brother.  On the other hand,
the
> > English '-er' word is (to say the least) quite
compatible
> > with a
> > habitual or repetitive sense as, I think, is also the BH
> > qatal when used in its gnomic sense.  BTW, I think "he
was
> > the one that ran" gives a fair sense for Hebrew *rats*,
but
> > your use of a cleft construction presents another
problem
> > within the pragmatic frameworks of BH vs. English.  If
the H
> > had been *hu' rats*, I might be even more inclined to
accept
> > your translation.
>
> So the only thing that determines whether it's one-shot or
habitual
> is context and semantics.  Correct?

Yes, but just to clarify "context"...  Context can be
labelled fairly precisely and objectively.  This is what we
do when we label the discourse type we are reading.  There
are only about six or seven discourse types, and the
discourse type dictates the meaning of the verb form.

<snip>

> > I do not view hyh as a mere copulative.  It is closer to
> > Greek GINOMAI than EIMI.  So hyh is only "quasi stative"
as
> > a root.
> > I have trouble translating qatal of hyh.  I often use
"had
> > become" and often settle for the English copulative.
>
> So the famous was/became problem in Gen 1:2 would seem to
> deepen under this analysis?  I'm not sure I follow this.
At least by
> NT times, GINOMAI often has the same force as EIMI, and
the
> only determiner is context.  Do you take the same view of
HYH?

I'll say closer to "become" for hyh.  yihyeh = he will
become.  hayah = he had become or he was.

>
> > Qatal statives:  I express them a couple ways, most
often as
> > predicate adjectives, e.g.
> > qatal: qatonti  "I am (was) small."
> > wayyiqtol: va'eqtan  "I became small (as in
disrespected)."
> >
> > The stative root 'hb is a little different:
> > qatal:  veyisra'el 'ahav 'et yoseph
> > "and Israel was a lover of Joseph," or
> > "it was Israel who was a lover of Joseph"
> > wayyiqtol:   veye'ehab 'isha benaxal soreq
> > "then he [Samson] fell in love with a woman of Wadi
Soreq."
>
> I would argue that "then" is expressed by the previous
clause
> "way:hiy )axarey ken" but that's peripheral.  I wonder how
much of
> the "fell in love" force is contained in the verb form and
how much is
> in the temporal clause preceding it, and how much is in
the
> pragmatic context.  It strikes me that they all seem to be
working
> together to produce this force.  What do you think?

Yeah, I think they are working together to make ve'isha
benaxal soreq 'ahab shimshon an unlikely option.

>
> > There are lots of ways to express stativity in BH.  Some
> > roots are stative.  We don't always need an "-er" word
to
> > express stative roots as attributions as shown above
because
> > the corresponding English is also "stative" attributive.
> > The "passive" stems often have a stative or attributive
> > sense.  Niphal
> > qatal of mts':  nimtsa'
> > "he is (was, had been) found."
> > Niphal wayyiqtol:  vayyimmatse'
> > "then he was found"
>
> I confess I don't see the difference here.  Aside from the
idea of
> sequentiality, which is also peripheral at the moment, the
two
> senses look alike to me.  Can you offer some biblical
examples of
> the two where contexts can illuminate the difference?

I confess I do not see much difference here.  That's my
point, that there is more than one way to express something
statively in BH.  Yup, sequentiality is one difference.
Also, the movement of an element of the clause to the
pre-verb position puts a degree of special focus on that
element.  ;-)

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267