Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,

We will discuss Deuteronomium chapter 2 in class this week. Verse 12 is
quite thought-provoking.

Deut. 2:12 The Horites also lived (QATAL) in Seir formerly, but the sons of
Esau dispossessed them (YIQTOL), and destroyed them (WAYYIQTOL) from before
them, and settled (WAYYIQTOL) in their stead; as Israel did (QATAL) to the
land of their possession, which the LORD gave (QATAL) to them.

The problem here is the past meaning of the YIQTOL YR$. To explain such
creatures two procedures are followed: (1) To claim that formerly two
YIQTOLs existed, a short preterit/modal form and a long form; and YIQTOLs
with past meaning go back to the preterit. (2) The action expressed by the
YIQTOL  is durative,iterative, habitual, frequentative etc.

Explanation (1) is for the most part used regarding Psalms which are viewed
as old, and there is no indication in Deut 2:12 that the YIQTOL can be
traced back to a short preterit. Explanation (2) is also problematic.
Durativity is an Aktionsart term which often wrongly is applied to aspect,
and the verb YR$ is durative by "birth". In addition the verb got the two
other semantic Aktionsart-properties at "birth", namely dynamicity (change
is implied) and telicity (the end is implied), The following verb $MD is
durative, dynamic, and telic as well. Both verbs express the same thought,
though seen from different angles, and they must refer to one completed
event (this is stressed by the following Y$B), the extermination of the
Horites. This event evidently took some time, but there is no indication of
iterativity, habituality or frequency in either of the verbs.

In view of the failure of the traditional explanations, how can we
understand the YIQTOL YR$? In my view the explanation is simple. To
dispossess and destroy are not two events in consecution, but one event.
Both verbs are simply YIQTOLs, and they are connected with the conjunction
WAW. Both the meaning of the verbs and the conjunction signal one event
seen from two different angles. The reason for the use of a YIQTOL instead
of a WAYYIQTOL is simple as well: the subject comes before the verb and a
conjunction is impossible. (There are quite a lot of other examples where a
YIQTOL is used when we would expect a WAYYIQTOL, because an element
precedes the YIQTOL.) To test my interpretation, look at verse 21. It is
quite similar, but it has three WAYYIQTOLs because no element precedes any
of them.

Thus Deut. 2:12 is an example of a YIQTOL that is used to express an event
in the past which was terminated at the time of writing. I am not aware of
*any* grammar that accounts for this *strange* situation, but a
two-component aspectual view of Hebrew verbs easily accounts for it.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo