Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Jonathan,

See my comments below:


>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.

In the introductory study of Accadian you must of course accept the
definitions of the verbs given by the text-books. But when you have laid
your foundation, it is time to question these definitions. Von Soden says
in his grammar that IPRUS, IPARRAS  etc were aspectual rather than tempora.
To call IPRUS "preterit" is in my view a misnomer. Don´t forget that
Precative, Vetitive, and Cohortative use the IPRUS  stem, thus it has modal
characteristics. I believe that IPRUS  parallels YENGER (subjunctive) of
Ge´ez, and the short prefix-forms of Ugaritic, Hebrew and Aramaic, but
neither of these are tenses, but imperfective aspects in combination with
the subjunctive mood.

>
>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?

The construction is satisfactory. I reject the view that WAYYIQTOL is
punctual (BTW punctuality is not a semantic property at all),but view the
WAYYIQTOL  to be a YIQTOL + conjunction. Do not confuse Aktionsart and
aspect. The term "durativity" is an Aktionsart term (a verb that lexically
is durative is allways durative, and nothing can change this) and not an
aspect term. I understand your confusion because many textbooks are
confusing. Even J. Huehnergard, whom I highly respect as a scholar, uses
the terms "preterit" (punctual, perfective) for IPRUS (3.5) and "durative"
(imperfective) for IPARRAS (12.2) in his excellent Accadian Grammar. But of
course, zamârum ("sing") (and similar verbs) is just as durative in the
IPRUS conjugation as it is in the IPARRAS conjugation; I have never heard
of punctual singing.
>
>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

My view of WAYYIQTOL is that it is imperfective just as YIQTOL. To
understand these viewpoints, please see my post to Bryan Rocine today (and
look in the Archive for discussions between Peter Kirk and myself).


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo