Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>]

Without responding to all, let me address the Gen 2 data (comments marked
JAF)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 5:29 PM

<snip>

<<
RF
What the grammars teach is true. Past contexts tend to begin with a QATAL
and continue with WAYYIQTOLs and future contexts tend to begin with a
YIQTOL and continue with WEQATALs. I view the two aspects as having several
traits in common and several different traits. In many cases the forms can
be used without any visible difference, in other cases they are used in
combination with other factors to signal particular points. If Hebrew is
tenseless, it is no wonder that one form (QATAL) is chosen as the basic
form for past reference and the other (YIQTOL) as the basic form for future
reference (Other choices: QATAL in first position for direct speech; YIQTOL
in first position for modality; WEQATAL as imperative following an
imperative etc.)

What the grammars do not tell, is that inside this quite harmonious
picture, there are a host of exceptions, which follow a particular pattern,
which is outside the linguistic convention. Therefore, these hundreds of
"exceptions" are very important, because they reveal the real nature of
YIQTOL  and QATAL, which cannot so easily be seen when YIQTOL  and QATAL
are wrapped up in conventions.
If we start with the beginning of the Bible, we have five examples of
YIQTOLs with past meaning where we could have expected WAYYIQTOLs in Gen 2:

v 5 HYH preceded by four words, with WAW attached to the first.
v 5 CMX (as above)
v 6 (LH preceded with a noun with prefixed WAW.
v 10 PRD preceded by an adverbial with prefixed WAW.
v 25 B$$ preceded by L) with prefixed WAW.

There are hundreds of similar examples and examples with QATAL preceded by
an alement with prefixed WAW where we would have expected WEQATAL according
to the linguistic convention. Why has these examples not been noted? I
guess the reason is that no grammarian has ever mapped all the verbal forms
of the Bible, and even more important: Because of the strong belief in a
four-component model, a belief that is inherited, nobody has systematically
looked for these examples, because they are not predicted by the
four-component model.
If you try to argue against the first two examples by a reference to +RM, I
ask you to show *why* and how +RM has a speciel force. If you argue for a
durative meaning of any of the examples, please show that durativity would
not be signaled if a WAYYIQTOL or QATAL was used. If you argue from the
point of view of discourse analysis, that we would not expect WAYYIQTOL in
one or more of the examples, please tell the frequency of WAYYIQTOL in the
kind of discourse you claim it to be or whether it is never found in such a
discourse.

>>

JAF:
Rolf, you mention a couple of relevant factors.

1. Most important is the discourse structure.  Most of the verbs you
reference are *not on the event line* of the narrative.  They are either in
the Setting (v5-6) or in a descriptive aside (v10-14). This is *background
information*, not eventive information.  And regarding frequency, WAYYIQTOL
**never** occurs in these contexts.  When WAYYIQTOL occurs it automatically
moves the events along in a narrative fashion.  The closing of v25 also
moves into the background, with a concluding ongoing result of the events in
the actual narrative.
2. Second, in negated contexts (v5, 25), WAYYIQTOL is never found.  Negation
implies irrealis--that which is not, which is the opposite of the
connotation of WAYYIQTOL/narration of past events.
3. Why YIQTOL instead of QATAL?  durativity would be an approximation.
Moreover, I note that YIQTOL is used for *repetitive* events: 'existence' or
'springing up' of plants (v5); v6 mist 'rising up'; v 10 river 'dividing';
v25 man and wife 'not being ashamed'.  I would suggest (though it is only a
working hypothesis) that QATAL would be used for more of stative or
perfective notions, where a one-time or completed event produced a certain
outcome.  What the difference is between YIQTOL and QOTEL participle (v10)?
There's plenty of work to be done here!

(What is +RM?? I missed that one...)


Finally, Rolf, you referred to what you called "the real nature of YIQTOL
and QATAL", but did not say what it is.  I very likely missed it at some
point in the past.  Could you reiterate what you think their nature is??
What is your view on these different forms?


God bless you!
Joe A. Friberg