Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

I am new to this level of Grammar, so I am just asking some questions to see 
if I
follow you. It is your explanation #2 that most interests me, as it is this 
interpretation
of things that I have experienced thus far. Though explanation #1 is 
intriguing me
because it falls into line with the things that I am picking up in Akkadian, 
I think the
process that they are describing is probably not terribly well understood. In 
other
words, though I believe that Hebrew had a number of prefix-conjugations that 
account
for some differences between yiqtols and vayyiqtols, modals, etc., I highly 
doubt the
linguists are getting it right.

So to my questions. According to the more traditional view in answer #2, the
consecutive nature of the vav applies to the aktionsart and not the aspect, 
so in Deut
2:12 we have a yiqtol (imperfective/durative) followed by a vayyiqtol
(perfective/durative)? You find this unsatisfactory because the vayyiqtol 
doesn't
betray any durative meaning. Is this correct? According to this 
understanding, is the
vayyiqtol imperfective or perfective?

Can it be that the change in aspect causes a break in the consecutivity of the
aktionsart and lets us free the vayyiqtol of the durativity of the first? 
Normally we have
a qatal (indicative/perfective/whatever aktionsart) followed by a vayyiqtol
(consecutively indicative/perfective/consecutively similar aktionsart) or 
vayyiqtols. So
the perfectivity of the vayyiqtol is intrinsic, and not a result of the vav, 
while other
features seem to be a result of the vav's combining into the sequence. Could 
it be,
however, that if the verbs in the sequence, when stuck together by the vav, 
do not
have the same aspect, then the vav ceases to be consecutive, but rather just
copulative? This would then require that the vayyiqtol not be yiqtol+vav, but 
rather
that the vayyiqtol be a completely different perfective verbform that only 
(or "almost
only") occurs with vav, bringing us to something like solution #1, except that
vayyiqitols are not a preterite form, but rather are a form which can only be 
described
as perfective.

Anyway, I would like to know how that would work out. I just thought it up 
without
really doing any research, and am curious to find the flaws in the idea. I 
really
answered the post for two reasons. First, to try and get the list at least a 
little closer
to the intended linguistic focus that it was intended for (though I am a 
supporter of
free speech), and also to start using the list to learn, rather than just 
criticize and
defend points of others. So I have just blurted something out from the hip in 
order to
get into the conversation and learn Hebrew. Please don't be too harsh if I am 
totally off
kilter.




"If there are many wisemen in a city, this means that the city will soon 
fall."
Babylonian proverb

Jonathan Bailey
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Column/9707/index.html

---------- Original Message ----------

>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



>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.