Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

As some of the last part of this seems to be directed to me as much as 
to Joe, I will make a quick reply.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: WAW  the conjunction
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    08/01/2000 15:41


Dear Joe,

First I would like to comment on your last point, then I will comment on 
the sequencing of WAYYIQTOLs. Those on the list who have read some of my 
points before can just skip the post.

<snip>

I did not at the outset assume any number of conjugations, but I would ask: 
How can we know there are more conjugations than the two the orthography 
(consonants) indicate? And further: Can the differences we see in the use 
of the forms (WAYYIQTOL generally for past narrative with QATAL as the 
"starter", and WEQATAL generally for the future and to express modality 
with YIQTOL as the "starter") be explained by a combination of pragmatics 
and linguistic convention, to the effect that there are just two 
conjugations?

The question about linguistic convention is in my mind very important, and 
is often ignored. To illustrate: Many clauses start with an imperative, and 
if the author wants the imperative force to continue, he can use other 
imperatives, or more often,he uses one or more WEQATALs. The 
YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL form can also be used with imperative force, and is in a 
few cases used after another imperative, but the rule is to use WEQATAL. 
What can we learn from this? Nothing more than that this is a linguistic 
convention? The same is true with the observation that direct speech often 
starts with a QATAL, but this form is scarce at the beginning of other 
clauses (though we find a good many cases of sentence-initial QATALs as 
well). These observations about WEQATAL  and QATAL tell us nothing about 
the *semantic meaning* of the forms, whether they belong to one conjugation 
or to two. And similarly with foreground and background discourse, that we 
see a tendency to use particular forms in particular units of discourse, 
tells us nothing about their *semantic meaning*; this is simply based on 
the convention of the writers.

PK: I am not sure that I accept or even fully understand the 
distinction you are making between semantic meaning and linguistic 
convention. I get the idea in part. But I don't see how it is possible 
even in principle to find the meaning rather than the conventional use 
in a dead language with no native speakers to ask - unless you take 
the conventional use as implying the semantics, the approach which you 
reject. You keep saying "this is not necessarily the semantic 
meaning", but you never say "this IS the semantic meaning", and I am 
not sure that your method allows you to say so. Anyway, my preference 
is to study what is actually in the text rather than speculate about 
what might have been in the mind of the author - if only for the 
pragmatic reason that we might then actually make some progress!

The consequence of the previous paragraph is that the general pattern of 
Hebrew does not necessarily reveal the true nature of each form, and show 
whether there are two or four conjugations, because this pattern does not 
reveal more than the linguistic convention of the writers. This can be 
compared to the  hypothetic deductive method of the natural sciences. Many 
observations that are compatible  with a hypothesis do not prove it, one or 
two observations that are not compatible can falsify it...

PK: It is the nature of real human language, as I see it, that there 
never are rules with the universal applicability of this rather 
idealised picture of natural sciences. Can you show me ANY non-trivial 
semantic rule in Hebrew which cannot be falsified by one or two 
counter-examples?

RF:... My task, therefore, is to find situations where linguistic 
convention does not cloud the true nature of each form,i.e. is WEQATAL 
simply a QATAL with the conjunction WAW, and is WAYYIQTOL simply a YIQTOL  
with the conjunction WAW? I see two possible situations (1) texts that are 
not completely guided/restricted by conventions, particularly non-narrative 
texts, and (2) clauses where we find a deviation from the normal, 
conventional rules.

PK: How do you determine which texts are not guided/restricted by 
conventions? Are you saying any more than that you find texts where 
the rules put forward by others are not followed?

<snip>

I have not completed my list of WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL sequences, but I will use 
the first one that I have on one list:

Is. 40:14 Whom did he consult (QATAL) for his enlightenment(WAYYIQTOL), and 
who taught (WAYYIQTOL) him the path of justice? Who taught (WAYYIQTOL) him 
knowledge, and showed (YIQTOL) him the way of understanding?

Here we have a chain of questions with with past reference, having one 
QATAL, three WAYYIQTOLs, and one YIQTOL. Why is the YIQTOL used? Because of 
the preceding noun-phrase with prefixed WAW. When commenting on this, 
please do not use the empty argument that this is not narrative. We have a 
verse with past meaning where we would have expected a WAYYIQTOL in last 
position.

PK: If you don't like the argument that this is not narrative (which 
is weak here), there are also the arguments that it is poetry, and 
from some that it is post-exilic (or at earliest the very end of the 
exile) and so "late Biblical Hebrew" in which verb form distinctions 
were changing.

Answering your question about the "true nature" of the verbs, my working 
hypothesis is that all QATALs with and without WAW represent the perfective 
aspect and all YIQTOLs with and without WAW  represent the imperfective 
aspect.

PK: The problem is, how do you define "perfective" and "imperfective"? 
You have already rejected Comrie's definition and the definition based 
on Russian, and indicated I think that Broman Olsen's definition needs 
to be modified. There is a danger of becoming like Humpty Dumpty here. 
I am still waiting for your definition of any factor or feature, or 
combination of them, which distinguishes all QATALs (with or without 
WAW) from all YIQTOLs (with or without WAW and WAY-). Well, maybe this 
should be the end result of your research. But putting undefined 
labels on things is not helpful; even worse is putting labels with 
commonly understood meanings on things but quietly rejecting those 
common meanings.

<snip>

In Bible translation, one problem is that of "translationese". This is an 
overtranslation where every detail is thought to have a meaning. This is 
fine in a strictly literal translation, but not in an idiomatic one. A 
basic problem in several models for Hebrew verb is "translationese" as 
well. Very special meanings are ascribed to verb forms with and without 
conjunctions, to particular groups and subgroups of discourse units. And 
all this is forced upon the text. While Hebrew can express grammatical 
details that English cannot do grammatically, it is my impression that the 
Hebrew writers were much less concerned with minute details of meaning and 
a strict use of particular forms that modern interpreters of the text are. 
We should not press the binyans, the participles and the finite forms and 
mold them onto our frame.

PK: Analysis of the Hebrew verbs and translation are quite different 
problems. Only in a strictly literal translation would one copy the 
analysis of the Hebrew directly into the English. Take an example like 
your Gen. 35:29 "And Isaac breathed his last (WAYYIQTOL); he died 
(WAYYIQTOL) and was gathered (WAYYIQTOL) to his people..." In Hebrew 
we have three verbs and we have to analyse it as three verbs which 
were written by the author, who was thinking that three different 
things happened, probably sequentially. Today's English Verson has cut 
this down to "and died at a ripe old age", and is justified in doing 
so in English. But that doesn't mean that the Hebrew author had the 
TEV text in mind but used three verbs to express the meaning of one. 
Well, he could have been if he was simply using an idiom e.g. a 
hendiadys (I didn't invent the term!), but I don't think this is an 
example of hendiadys.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk