Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[3]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:22:50 -0500


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for clarifying how the term "semantic meaning" has a meaning
greater than the sums of the meanings of the words "semantic" and
"meaning". Just like WAYYIQTOL may mean more than the sum of WE- and
YIQTOL. Well, technical terms work differently from verbal semantics,
so that's not a serious line of argument!

I cannot comment on your Aramaic except to say that most of the
examples of past YIQTOL you quoted from Daniel 4:12,36 could easily be
read in an iterative and/or gradual (what should I call this if
"durative" is wrong?) sense. So they would teach us nothing even if
they were Hebrew. I am not sure about "my reason returned", but
perhaps the suggestion is that this was a gradual process, though this
could also be telic like your YLD examples from Job.

Joshua 7:6 is an interesting example. The NRSV "and fell to the
ground... until the evening" is not good English, but I think we need
to read the Hebrew (AD-HA(EREB as something like "AND STAYED LIKE THAT
until evening". My explanation would be that the WAYYIQTOL has its
normal meaning, ingressive with respect to the resulting state, and
that state lasts for the time indicated by the (AD phrase. I have a
feeling that this is a common idiom, can anyone confirm it?

As for my point about finding an imperfective explanation of WAYYIQTOL
forced, the explanation I was thinking of was the one which you made
in your posting, about WAYYIQTOLs being imperfective because they are
resultative, even in the case of MWT because of beliefs in the
afterlife. This explanation is of course based on YOUR definition of
"imperfective". I find this explanation forced, simply because in a
vast number of cases of WAYYIQTOL there is absolutely no focus on any
sort of result. Indeed in many cases there simply is no enduring
result, e.g. to take an example at random, in 1 Kings 2:40-41:

"Shimei arose (WAYYIQTOL) and saddled (WAYYIQTOL) a donkey, and went
(WAYYIQTOL) to Achish in Gath, to search (INF CONSTR) for his slaves;
Shimei went (WAYYIQTOL) and brought (WAYYIQTOL) his slaves from Gath.
When Solomon was told (WAYYIQTOL) that..."

Shimei went to Gath, but there was no resulting state because he came
straight back, and had already returned before verse 41. At least I
think that any explanation of these WAYYIQTOLs as resultative and so
imperfective would be forced. Of course you are welcome to try to come
up with an explanation which is not forced, but I don't expect to see
one.

Peter Kirk




______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 14/01/2000 19:34


Dear Peter,

Just a few short comments.

<snip>

To avoid misunderstanding I will say something about the word "semantic"
versus "semantic meaning". The adjective has to do with "meaning" og any
kind. The expression "semantic meaning" used in linguistic contexts is
restricted to "meaning" that meets two demands: (1) It is specific in the
sense that it can be distingusihed from other kinds of "meaning" by clearly
defined borders. (2) It is uncancelable,i.e. it will always be a part of
the form in question in any use and in any context.

It is this special and restricted characteristic that I have not found in
the YIQTOL/QATAL opposition. Remember though that the same is true with
other parts of the verbal system. We cannot find "semantic meaning" in the
opposition indicative/subjunctive, and neither in infinitive constructus
and absolutus or in the participles. And neither is there a "semantic
meaning" distinguishing between stative and fientive verbs. However, it is
very meaningful to deal with all this groups! Semantic meaning do exist in
Hebrew, inside the Aktionsart system. The characteristics dynamicity,
durativity, and telicity are semantic, and verbs with such characteristics
are important tools in the study of the verbal system. It is also
meaningful to use the semantic meaning inside the universal tense system to
measure Hebrew verbs.

In addition to the approach based on semantic meaning,there are two more
areas: We can base our study of Hebrew verbs on *morphology* (which usually
signals a difference in meaning, though not necessarily a difference in
semantic meaning), and on *the use* of the verb forms. I agree that the
cognate languages cannot be used as a primary tool in the study of Hebrew,
but I am not aware of any article or work that has denied that a study of
the cognate languages can throw light upon Hebrew. The fact that Aramaic
uses YIQTOLs with past meaning even with telic verbs, reveals something
about the Semitic mind, and the purpose of such examples is to show that if
we claim that this is a trait of Hebrew as well, it is not without parallel
in a very close language. The linguistic literature abounds with examples
from a wide variety of languages.

All of us must choose our own corpus, but as far as I am concerned, I
prefer to work with the whole corpus of the Bible. That verb forms should
have different meanings in different genres, is i my view completely
without basis. That the meaning of verbs can change through time is
possible or even likely, but so far, no study has demonstrated this for
Biblical Hebrew.

And lastly, you have the right to draw your own conclusion as to the
meaning of WAYYIQTOL and have the opinion that "to find an IMPERFECTIVE
meaning for these WAYYIQTOLs is often forced". However, it would have been
a service to the reader to make clear by the help of which definition of
"imperfective" it is forced. This would be helpful, because I agree that
given the definintion of Broman Olsen and Comrie it *is* forced to view
WAYYIQTOLs as imperfective, but not if we use the definition of Carlota
Smith, Carl Backe or myself.




Regards

Rolf



Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page