Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Lee,

We both agree there is no way by which we can be certain that we have found
"the truth" regarding the meaning of the Hebrew conjugations. At the outset
your view may be just as good as mine. To reach a reasoned conclusion,
however, we should take a look at the basis for our views. And sad to say,
the basis for the view you have been taught is tradition - one teacher
handed his views over to the next and so forth. There is nothing dishonest
in this, because the "truth" of the system is seen by help of induction -
it fits well an many cases. The problem, however, is that induction
*proves* nothing, and that the old views have never been adequately tested
by modern linguistic methods. I must admit that I was completely stunned
when I first discovered that nobody had ever tested Hebrew verbs from the
viewpoint of past tense versus past meaning, but that all studies had taken
for granted that past meaning was the same as past tense.

Your suggestion is possible but in my view very unlikely. Why should an
author want to introduce a modal expression at a point where other similar
accounts have indicative? The problem with this view is enhanced by the
fact that we can explain *why* a WAYYIQTOL is not used, namely, because the
subject precedes the verb. WAYYIQTOL,WEYIQTOL YIQTOL, QATAL,and  WEQATAL
can all express modal/subjunctive meaning. There are different signals
indicating modality ()L, sentence initial position, apocopation) but only
the first is a definite mark for modality. We therefore should not
interpret a form as modal if this is not indicated by the context (or by
)L). There is nothing in Deut 2:12 suggesting modality, so the reason for
your suggestion is grammatical theory rather than morphology, syntax or
context, and this makes it in a way an ad hoc-explanation.
I am quite sure that nobody would have suggested that YR$ is modal if this
would not be a way to save the traditional distinction between YIQTOL and
WAYYIQTOL.

The conjunction WAW is extremely important in Hebrew linguistic convention.
Therefore, only between 5 and 10% of the YIQTOLs of MT has past meaning. Of
these, only a limited number have the Aktionsart and occur in a context
where we can see that it functions just as a WAYYIQTOL. Just the same there
is quite a number of examples similar to Deut 2:12. We also find quite a
number of QATALs with an element preceding and having future meaning where
we had expected a WEQATAL. All these examples together make a good case
against the traditional view. Such new thinking should be considered,
because we can force upon the text a meaning that was never intended if we
translate on the basis og grammatical theory that restrict the meanings of
a particular form rather than on the basis of the text itself.

The crucial point in this discussion is: Can a YIQTOL be used to portray a
telic event that was terminated at the point of writing, without signaling
either modality or habituality? Traditional grammatical theory answers NO!
But the Hebrew text answers YES. And I have already given many examples of
this from a cognate language, namely Aramaic.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





>Dear Rolf,
>I was taught that yiqtol expresses future, past habitual, and
>modal/subjunctive.  Deut. 2:12 may be subjunctive. Thus it reads,
>"The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the sons of Esau would
>dispossess them (yiqtol, showing intent or desire).  So they destroyed them
>from before them, and they settled in their stead."
>Lee R. Martin
>
>
>Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>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.
>>