Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dave,
>>
>>
>> Dear Dave,
>>
>> I think Holloday is a good example of how people holding traditional
>> viewpoints defend these with questionable means. Formally speaking, NOTAR
>> *may* be a YIQTOL, and in that case it must be a Hiphil Jussive; a Hiphil
>> indicative would be NOTIR. However, there are several reasons to reject the
>> view that NOTAR is a Hiphil Jussive:
>
>???  I didn't see anybody but you suggest a hiph`il jussive.  A
>jussive would YOWT"R.  This is confusing.  Are you building a
>straw man here, or did I miss something?

Generally a Hiphil Imperfect has an "i"-vowel, usually written plene, while
a Jussive lacks this "i" vowel. Regarding YTR we find the Jussives
)AL-TOTAR in Genesis 49:4 and )AL-YOTER in Exodus 16:19, while we find
Indicative WELO-TOTIRW. in Exodus 12:10 and Leviticus 22:30.  I do not
suggest that NOTAR is Jussive, but point out that because there is no
"i"-vowel and because we have a similar form which definitely is Jussive,
it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that if we analyze it as a
prefix-form, it must be Jussive. And a Jussive does not collocate with LO.

>
>[snip]
>> The above points together with Peter's fine arguments regarding NIMCA makes
>> a strong case for two QATALs in the same verse with future meaning. I am
>> wondering why so many people with tooth and nail fight against the view
>> that QATALs without WE cannot have future meaning when none of these people
>> (at least this seems to be the case) has systematically looked at all the
>> QATALs of the Bible and evaluated their temporal meaning.
>
>Rolf, you're not listening to me.  I have said absolutely nothing
>about temporal meaning.  I have no problem at all with a qatal that
>bears a future meaning, and I would appreciate it if you would not
>attribute such views to me.  I haven't said anything of the kind.   I
>have no problem at all with a qatal appearing in an )$R clause with
>a future sense, I'm just trying to unscramble the clauses and figure
>out what's being found and who's doing the finding.  If you want to
>see it as a niph`al 3ms, that's fine with me.  I'm not above exploring
>some other options, especially when I find them in a reference work
>that I respect.  And I'm not sure in what sense you consider
>Holladay "traditional."  In any case, it's a minor point so I suggest
>we let it lie.
>

I did not have you in mind when I expressed my sigh, but rather Holladay
and other commentators who stick to the traditional views without seemingly
having an open mind for new alternatives.


In an earlier post you wrote:

<So far, the examples of weqatal without a modal meaning that I
<have seen are considerably less than satisfying.  So I haven't seen
<evidence yet that modality is not evident in all its uses.

One reason why I suggested a "simple" approach to modality rather than one
built on modern semantic logic, was that the crucial point is how native
speakers viewed a verb. To define future as a subset of modality does not
seem to fit the Hebrew mind. If we, however, for the sake of argument,
combine indicative with actual/factual events and modality with volition
and events that are not actual/factual, a case can be made for
QATAL/WEQATAL not being modal in several cases.

In connection with prophetic utterances, the grammars use the term
"prophetic perfect", indicating that the prophecy is so certain that it is
as if it already has been fulfilled. I reject this idea, but it shows how
commentators think- and this thinking is interesting. When God utters a
prophecy, expressed by either QATAL or WEQATAL, I am quite sure that the
Hebrew mind would put such prophecies in the group which we call indicative
(See for instance 1 kings 11:11,31,35,37). Volition and uncertainty would
not be connected with such words. If such situations are not accepted as
indicative, then, what kind of evidence is needed to show that something is
indicative?



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo