Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Hi Rolf,  You wrote:

> 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.

You seem to dismiss explanation 1 out of hand.  It's not a
remnant of the old yiqtol just because it's not in Psalms?
How about Deu 4:41?  Your post does more to argue *for*
explanation 1 than against it.  BTW, I prefer to label the
old, short story-telling yiqtol as perfective rather than
preterit.

In my mind, you still have this insurmountable problem with
your model.  It's primarily a matter of your labelling, if
you ask me.  You want to label all prefixed forms
imperfective by giving a very unorthodox definition of
imperfective.  Why not call the prefixed forms the Tom-forms
or the Dick-forms or the Harry-forms instead?  That because
you see the prefixed forms as expressing a particular
subjective viewpoint that is rather divergent from a more
orthodox understanding of aspect.  Otherwise you will
continue to have the insurmountable problem that most if not
all wayyiqtols as well as a few yiqtols (as Deu 2:12) are
*perfective* by a more orthodox understanding of aspect.
Why do you insist on playing a sort of semantic
slight-of-hand with the commonly accepted terminology of TAM
study?  (I feel I can even predict your answer:  BH must be
understood in its own right, and the BH understanding of
aspect may be different from that of English, Greek, Russian
or any other language.  Am I right?  My reply is that if
your explanation of BH aspect ranges *too far* from the
nature of aspect in other languages, then maybe you are no
longer talking about aspect or aspect alone and would
benefit by coining some new terminology.)

You must understand that I *agree* with you that all the
prefixed forms, including long, short, clause-initial,
clause-medial, and wayyiqtol share a common signification.
However, I prefer not to label that meaning as either
perfective, imperfective, or even aspectual (in and of
itself).  I prefer to call it *writer's subjective
viewpoint*, something that is applied in the corpus with
great TAM flexibility.  I prefer to call the prefixed forms
fientive, as expressing emerging action (as opposed to the
suffixed forms that express attributions or "the state the
subject is in at the time being talked about").  I believe
my explanation is, in fact, very close to yours, but it is
quite friendly to discourse analysis, more friendly to
comparative Semitics, and more respectful of the orthodox
terminolgy of TAM studies.

Shalom,
Bryan

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.
>
>

B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267