Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Verbforms in Is 51

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Verbforms in Is 51
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:55:00 -0400


I know Randall thinks you are wrong in parsing WA)A:BFR:K"HUW
[correction of your WA)A:BFK:"HUW] as WAYYIQTOL, but the Westminster
morphology (the version in my computer) supports you here. Presumably
this is taken as an abbreviated version like WAY:HIY for WAY.:HIY, the
doubling is often omitted before a shewa and presumably could be
before a compound shewa. Now it is harder to take W:)AR:B."HUW as it
stands as WAYYIQTOL (and Westminster takes this as WEYIQTOL), but the
difference is just one vowel point. So I would suggest that it makes
more sense to take these two verbs both as WAYYIQTOL showing sequence
to Q:RF)TIYW. For surely there is no suggestion that the events are
not actual, past and sequential.

As for T.:XOWLEL:KEM, I think this simply clarifies the fact that my
analysis in terms of relative tenses is by no means the whole story of
the Hebrew verb. Unlike others, I do not claim to make statements that
must apply to 100% of Hebrew verb forms without exception.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Verbforms in Is 51
Author: <zellmer AT digitelone.com> at Internet
Date: 16/10/1999 19:07


My drafters came to me yesterday with unspecified comments about
"unusual" verbforms in Isaiah 51. We were in the middle of something
else, so we did not get a chance to discuss it at the time. (I'm still
not sure why these questions did not come up earlier in their work.)
But, in looking briefly at the chapter, I think I see their questions.
Take, for example, verse 51:2.

HAB.IY+UW )EL-)AB:RFHFM )A:BIYKEM W:)EL-&FRFH T.:XOWLEL:KEM K.IY-)EXFD
Q:RF)TIYW WA)A:BFK:"HUW W:)AR:B."HUW

The overall passage is hortatory, so the imperative verb is to be
expected. Also, considering the recent investigations here on the list
led basically by Peter into relative time references, the qatal in a
relative clause [K.IY-)EXFD Q:RF)TIYW] and the wayyiqtol [WA)A:BFK:"HUW]
are not surprising. However, what part of the baggage of meaning that
yiqtols carry is being brought out in the X-yiqtol [W:)EL-&FRFH
T.:XOWLEL:KEM] and the weyiqtol [W:)AR:B."HUW]?

I trust that you realize that this is an honest inquiry. I am seeking
an understanding of what is being brought out in this passage. I am not
proposing this as a thesis for debate to promote a personal agenda.
However, I invite the opinions of all sides of the previous discussions
as long as they can give me some sort of reason for the forms that
Isaiah chose here.

Paul

----

Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippines

zellmer AT digitelone.com



---
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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page