Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

I was not arguing for a future meaning of the Niphal QATAL NIMCF) but 
rather for a past meaning. Please don't quote me as in support of your 
theory, only in support of your parsing of the form NIMCF).

Similarly, W:LO)-NOWTAR can be understood with a past meaning. This is 
an interesting one which ties up with Bryan's idea of QATAL being 
stative, a state arrived at as a result of a previous event. The 
English idiom is actually similar. "No-one is left" appears to be 
present tense, but is actually perfect, for "left" is the passive past 
participle of the verb "leave". Similarly "no-one will be left" also 
has a past element. If we look at the reference time, in a verse like 
2 Samuel 17:12, which is the time of the observation, the observers 
say that in the battle which is already past the attackers did not 
leave anyone alive, and so in that sense "no-one will be left" is past 
relative to the reference time. This is basically the same argument as 
with ):A$ER NIMCF) but slightly more subtle. These subtleties need to 
be looked at carefully by those trying to understand the Hebrew verb 
system, and certainly not rejected as "example[s] of how people 
holding traditional viewpoints defend these with questionable means" 
or as fighting "with tooth and nail".

I admit that I have not "systematically looked at all the QATALs of 
the Bible and evaluated their temporal meaning." After all, to do that 
adequately and with an eye to this type of subtlety, rather than 
assigning a "future" label because there is a future tense in an 
English or other translation, would probably be more than a life's 
work. But surely it is not unreasonable, in a forum like this rather 
than a formal academic setting, to examine the cases which you put 
forward (which I assume you select as being strong cases) of QATAL 
with future meaning, to see if their meaning really must be future. 
Are you really saying that your hypothesis of future meaning must be 
allowed to pass unchallenged and untested? If your hypothesis is 
looking unsteady under the probings of someone like me, what chance 
does it hold when you try to promote it in a formal academic forum 
among the real experts?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________ Subject: Re[3]: The form of weqatal
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet 
Date:    22/07/1999 17:30


Dave Washburn wrote:

>> I accept WELO-NOTAR as a difficult form which needs close study. 
>
>Holladay, following K-B, lists this form as a hiph`il yiqtol and 
>specifically refers to 2 Sam 17:12, with the parenthesis "oth.: nif. 
>pf."  Since the clause is clearly referring to intention and not past, 
>which I see as modal, I suspect that Holladay is correct and it's 
>another yiqtol 1cp.
>
>Thus, wrt nimcf, I see it as a yiqtol "wherever we may find [them]," 
>and wrt welo' notar, I see this also as a yiqtol, "we won't leave a 
>single one alive."



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:

(1) We would not expect a Jussive after LO, but an indicative, just as in 
Exodus 12:10, and Leviticus 22:30
(2) The only examples of YTR in Hiphil Jussive are Genesis 49:4 and Exodus 
16:19, and they do not parallel 2 Samuel 17:12.
(3) The expression "to be left" expressed by Niphal perfect is attested 
several times, both with present and future meaning. All these examples are 
parallel to 2 Samuel 17:12

2 Sam 9:1 "Is there yet any left of the house of Saul"  Present 
2 Sam 13:30 "not one of them is left" Present
2 Sam 17:12 "not any of his men will be left alive" Future (The passage 
under discussion)
1 Kings 9:21 "their sons who were left after them" Present 
1 Kings 18:22 "I am left"  Present
Isaiah 30:17 "until you are left" Future
Ezekiel 14:22 "there shall be left in it escaping ones" Future 
Nehemiah 6:1 "Not a gap was left in it" Present
2 Chronicles 8:8 "their sons who were left" Present.

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.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
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.