Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Rolf,

> >???  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.

It also doesn't express first person.  That's why your reference 
threw me.  I'm not sure why Holladay suggests the form could 
hiph`il; I suspect he's quietly citing a study somewhere, because 
he also indicates the niph`al alternative.  Holladay is a 
condensation of K-B, which I don't have.  Could somebody with 
access to it check out what they say about this form?  I agree that 
NOTAR as a hiph`il form would be rather unusual, but stranger 
things have happened in Hebrew.  Perhaps the presence of the 
laryngeal resh has something to do with it, I don't know.  I'd have to 
see the pro and con arguments in order to go further on this 
subject.  I've seen your con arguments, but I'd like to see the pro 
reasonings as well.

> >[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.

Then if you're going to discuss this with me, would you do me a 
favor and stick to what I'm saying rather than dragging others into it 
with whose views I have little or nothing in common?

> 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. 

Yes, but this strikes me as a bit of a smokescreen.  Native 
speakers don't necessarily formalize everything, true.  But as I 
pointed out, formalization is merely a way of describing, as 
accurately as possible, what their native intuitions are.  The fact 
that they don't think in notational logic doesn't negate that fact or 
militate against it.

To define future as a subset of modality does not
> seem to fit the Hebrew mind. 

I'm not sure what this is based on.  It seems to me this is precisely 
what we're trying to discover here.

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.

Once again you seem to be assuming what we're setting out to 
learn: are these two verb conjugations or one?  I agree that qatal 
isn't modal, but disagree wrt weqatal.

> 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?

I'll take a look at these and get back to you.  In the meantime, if 
you can toss out some more I'll look at those as well.  There is no 
such thing as too many examples.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.