Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Alviero,

See my comments below.

>
>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.
>
>
>
>AN
>
>  Dear Rolf Furuli,
>
> 1) We are to assume that different verbforms play different functions in
>a text, aren't we. Every language is basically coherent, although no
>language is hundred percent coherent.

RF
I agree, and have often stressed this myself, that different verb forms
play different functions and have different meanings. However, you assume
that WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL are different verb forms, and therefore must have
different  functions in Deut 2:12, but this is the very matter that we are
discussing, and to follow a good methodology. we should not assume one of
the possibilities we arediscussing. The expression "verb form" is a
morphological expression, isn´t it? If so, one should, to show a sound
basis for the view that WAYYIQTOL is a different "form" compared with
YIQTOL, be able to demonstrate a difference in morphology. This means that
one should be able to demonstrate *morphologically* that WAYYIQTOL is more
than YIQTOL + WAW. So far nobody has managed to do that. To try to
demonstrate that WAYYIQTOL is a form different from YIQTOL by the *use* of
the forms is simething completely different and is of course substantially
less reliable. As a minimum requirement in such a case *all* the
WAYYIQTOLs/YIQTOLs of the Bible should be considered, and it should be
shown that they (save a reasonable number of exceptions) have a uniform use.

AN
>     Deut 2:10-12 conveys information on the history of Moab by means of
>offline verforms x-qatal and x-yiqtol. A similar passage on the history of
>Ammon is found in 2:20-23. Note that  both passages convey offline
>information with reference to an oral narrative--a speech of Moses that
>begins with mainline x-qatal (not wayyiqtol!) in 1:6. (It is the first
>speech of Moses. The second also begins with mainline x-qatal in 5:2.)
>        We can make sense of Deut 2:10-12 by applying the usual functions
>of qatal and yiqtol in a past narrative. The yiqtol *yira$um* may well
>reflect the period of time that was necessary for the children of Esau to
>dispossess the Horites until they finally destroyed them.
>         "(2:10)  Now the Emim formerly lived (x-QATAL) there, a people
>great and many, and tall as the Anakim. (2:11) Now the Rephaim were also
>being counted as the Anakim (x-YIQTOL), while the Moabites used to call
>them (x-YIQTOL) Emim. (2:12) Now the Horites also lived in Seir formerly,
>while (or, when) the sons of Esau were trying to disposssess them
>(x-YIQTOL). They finally destroyed them (WAYYIQTOL) from before them, and
>settled (WAYYIQTOL) in their stead, just as Israel did (x-QATAL) to the
>land of their possession, which the LORD gave (x-QATAL) to them."

RF
Because we have no living informants we cannot say that your suggestion is
wrong, but you are adding several elements only because of *theory* and not
because of the text, and that is quite risky. There is no indication
anywhere that the YIQTOL YR$ has a conative force. To the contrary, in 2:22
the order of the verbs is reversed, with $MD (QATAL) coming first and YR$
(WAYYIQTOL) coming after, both indicating extermination not just an attempt
to exterminate the Horites. There are no accents in 2:12 signaling a break
after YR$ as you presume, and when two verbs follow, one after the other,
the most natural interpretation is that either they represent the same
event or two events that follow, one after the other. To introduce a
conative situation (they tried to..) when there is absolutely no indication
of a conative force anywhere, is very doubtful, to say the least. Even if
the WA- of WAYIQTOL  was a conjunction there is a long conjectural step to
take it in the sense "finally", and you do not even take WA- as a
conjunction. Your suggestion is not impopssible, but in my view it is an
example of the danger of translating on the basis of theory alone. I wonder
if any Bible translation translate the verse similar to your suggestion.


Deut. 2:12 The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the sons of Esau
dispossessed them (YIQTOL), and destroyed them (WAYYIQTOL) from before
them, and settled (WAYYIQTOL)in their stead;


Deut. 2:22 as he did for the sons of Esau, who live in Seir, when he
destroyed (QATAL) the Horites before them, and they dispossessed
(WAYYIQTOL) them, and settled in their stead even to this day.


AN
>         As for explanation (1) you mention, it has a basis on the West
>Semitic as was shown by respectable scholars. I also favored it in the
>past but presently I prefer to apply to BH literature (both poetry--even
>archaic poetry-- and prose) the rules gained from the analysis of good
>prose texts.

RF
It is of course unavoidable to use the term "respected scholars" in Semitic
studies, but we should rather say "the interpretation/conjecture of
respected scholars", and look for data rather than for personalities.

AN
>       Clearly I favor explanation (2) as shown above. First, I would
>insist that what decides the choice of the verbforms is not the actual
>course of events but the writer. Also the relationship with the time of
>writing is irrelevant, because the writer may wish to present things
>differently, e.g. "in medias res," as if in the middle of the event that
>he is narrating.

RF
I perfectly agree with you, and this is a pivotal point in my own
argumentation regarding the meaning of WAYYIQTOL. I take it in the same way
that YIQTOL is used with past meaning in Aramaic, as  "in medias res," -
the event is signaled by the Aktionsart of the verb, and the end is ignored
because it is implied by the narrative itself. However, while we agree that
what decides the verb form is the writer, the case is still a matter of
argument because the situation is different in English where
truth-cinditional matters restrict the use of the aspects, and there are
many situations where just one of the aspects can be used. Therefore we
cannot take it for granted in Hebrew, but must demonstrate that this is the
case. I agree that the time of writing in principle is irrelevant, what
counts is the deictic point, which may or may not be the time of writing.
However, the time of writing must be taken into account to find the deictic
point, and therefore it is worth mentioning.

AN
> Second, the "native" properties of a verb are relevant, as far as know,
>for the stative verbs only. In other words, even though a certain verb may
>be durative, dynamic and telic "by birth," as you say, it can also be
>employed differently. This is not inferred from a semantic theory (or
>whatever) but derived from the analysis of texts. Actually the same verbs
>are used, e.g., in the wayyiqtol and qatal, on the one side, and in the
>x-yiqtol and weqatal, on the other. Since I am not ready to assume that
>BH, as any language, is chaotic, I think we have to ask ourselves why
>different verbforms are used in different coonnections and contexts.

RF
This is very interesting. Could you give me just one example of a verb with
durative or dynamic or telic Aktionsart where this property is canceled in
a particular context? I would view this as quite revolutionary! Stativity,
on the other hand, is cancelable. Any verb which is static can have a
fientive interpretation as well. Linguistic dissertations have been written
about the uncancelability of the properties durativity, dynamicity, and
telicity, so it would be very fine to have counterexamples.


AN
Third, if an explanation that is coherent with what I know from clearer
texts is possible in an obscure text, I think it is the best solution.

RF
Here I see a possible element of circularity, just as in the case of the
slogan "the survival of the fittest". What is the definition of "the
fittest"? The one who survives! What is an obscure text? Is that a text
where the use of verbs is different from the theory? I prefer to take the
whole text of the Bible as a good text. Only when textual criticism,
serious diachronic studies, or other scientific arguments cast doubt on the
feasibility of a oprtion of text would I call it obscure. If you have a
good definition of a clear and an obscure text, I will of course retract my
suspiction of circularity

AN
>         2) I do not know whether or not my explanation above can be said
>"traditional," and thus it falls under your judgment of failure. As for
>your solution that Deut 2:12 is a case of yiqtols connected  with the
>conjunction waw, I already voiced my reservations in this forum in recent
>past. The evidence of the texts shows that the continuation form of
>INDICATIVE x-yiqtol is not weyiqtol but rather weqatal for the mainline
>and x-yiqtol for the offline. Weyiqtol is the continuation form of JUSSIVE
>yiqtol (or of an imperative--also a volitive form).         To say that a
>yiqtol is used instead of a wayyiqtol because the subject comes before the
>verb and a conjunction is impossible, amounts to confusing cause and
>effect, I'm afraid. The use of x-yiqtol is the effect of a choice on the
>part of the writer to employ a second-place-verb verbforms (i.e. x-yiqtol
>or x-qatal), which are in my opinion offline in historical narrative, and
>not a first-place-verb verbform (i.e. wayyiqtol in historical narrative).
>It is not the cause of that choice.         You may still insist that
>"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";
>however, you might also want to consider the fact that several times when
>you addressed specific texts in this forum, other people suggested
>different explanations.

RF
Most texts in a dead language can be interpreted in different ways, but it
is important to realize *why* an interpretation is made, i.e. the model or
theory on which it is based. But it is often difficult to admit one's own
presuppositions.  As I have stated before, I find your work excellent and
your finds very informative. I am not aware of any study that to such a
high degree has illuminated the use of verbs in narrative Hebrew texts. My
objection, however, is the underlaying *all-proposition* of your system,
something that equates function and meaning. The pattern you have described
of the forms used in mainline and offline etc. is undoubetedly corect. A
problem arises, however, when this is applied to *all* the clauses in
narrative texts, to the point where we can go backwards and say that
because this form is used, it must have this discourse function. Or worse,
this form has this meaning because it has this function. A language is a
coherent system, but each writer is also an individual. So how can we know
that the use of what you call "a second-place-verb" form is parallel to the
uses of such forms elsewhere? Your argument above that I confuse cause and
effect when I say that the choice of YIQTOL in Deut 2:12 is because the
subject comes first, is based upon such an  all-proposition. It is based
upon the the assumption that you allways know how a YIQTOL should behave.



         Finally, I think that we are back to what is the main issue of BH
verb system, i.e. the difference between  a first-place-verb sentence and a
second-place-verb sentence. Until we settle this issue, no solution can
really be found, I'm afraid. We can only speculate, each one in his own
way. Peace and all good.
> Alviero Niccacci
>

To find the pattern of what you call first-place-verb sentences and
second-place-verb sentences would be a very fine task, and you have already
described such a pattern in a fine way in narratives. However, such a
pattern can teach us verbal *function*, but it can never teach us verbal
*meaning*. What I believe is the main issue of the BH verbal system, is the
question about which parts of the system are semantic (uncancelable) and
which are pragmatic (cancelable). But an understanding of this this can
never be achieved by discourse analysis.




Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo