Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: (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[2]: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:01:51 -0500


Dear Rolf,

I wonder if you are trying to attribute to me in the following
paragraph something which I don't think I have ever quite said. It was
after all you who translated my "relative (non-)past" into
"(im)perfective". Now the following may be the case, as I suggested
last week but with your translation made (and so the definition of
"(im)perfective" is basically yours):

QATAL: perfective, non-sentence initial*
WAYYIQTOL: perfective, sentence initial
YIQTOL (long): imperfective, non-sentence initial
YIQTOL (short): imperfective, modal?
WEQATAL: imperfective, sentence initial
WEYIQTOL: imperfective, modal?, sentence initial

* QATAL may be sentence-initial at the start of direct speech
only, in this context it is used instead of WAYYIQTOL.

But here is another suggestion which fits better your objections and
also the observation that there are THREE morphologically
distinguished verb conjugations in Hebrew: QATAL, short YIQTOL and
long YIQTOL:

QATAL: aspectually unmarked, non-sentence initial*
WEQATAL: aspectually unmarked, sentence initial
YIQTOL (long): imperfective, non-sentence initial
YIQTOL (short): aspectually unmarked?, modal?
WEYIQTOL: aspectually unmarked?, modal?, sentence initial
WAYYIQTOL: perfective, sentence initial

* QATAL may be sentence-initial at the start of direct speech
only

On this scheme it is possible to see how all of the verb forms other
than WAYYIQTOL may co-occur in a future or habitual context, and how
all of the forms except for long YIQTOL may co-occur in a non-habitual
past context. Now there may well be objections to this latter scheme,
and I am not ready to defend it. But I think it is worth looking at
further. At least I have found an aspect of similarity between long
YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL: they are the aspectually marked forms, but in
opposite directions!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: (long) Re[3]: WAW the conjunction
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 14/01/2000 20:31

<snip>

As I already have stated in this thread, I believe that in the study of
Hebrew verbs, morphology is the fundamental property by which to start, and
then the use of the forms. This means that I will not without strong
evidence accept that YIQTOL is imperfective in most contexts and perfective
in others and that QATAL is perfective in most contexts but imperfective in
others. This would be tantamount to linguistic anarchy. I have repeatedly
argued that QATAL and YIQTOL in hundreds of passages are used to signal
exactly the same thought. But this is not because they have lost their
particular aspectual value but because the aspects have several similar
traits, and they can be *used* similarly in different unmarked contexts.
Jouon/Muraoka 368,369 says that YIQTOLs in some contexts have the value of
QATAL, namely instantaneity. Given my definition of Hebrew aspect, the
problems that forced the mentioned grammar to take this strange standpoint,
have vanished and an imperfective explanation is possible. To have a sound
basis to evaluate this explanation one has to look at *all* the forms in the
Bible.


Regards

Rolf




Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page