Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: YIQTOL with past meaning (R. Furuli)

Dear Rolf Furuli,

I do not like to go on arguing when I feel that I said what I had to say. I prefer to leave the matter to others to make up their mind. This time, I allow myself some remarks on the portions of your post quoted below.

On  1/30/00 (Re: YIQTOL with past meaning) Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear Alviero,

        < ... >

> 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

1) If *morphologically* includes Masoretic vocalization, the demonstration is at hand; if not, no demonstration seems possible to me.

        You keep on speaking on function, use, meaning in determining the value of the verbforms. Well, my methodology is as follows: identify a verbform morphologically distinct; look for its function with reference to other verbforms in the text; choose a suitable way of rendering that function in the language of translation. That's all. I do not speak of *meaning* (unless by mistake). Indeed, I oppose the attempt at deriving the function of the verbforms from their supposed *meaning*.

        IMO it is not necessary (not even advisable) to consider *all* the wayyiqtol/yiqtol forms in the Bible before proposing a *theory.* On the contrary, as soon as possible one should formulate a working hypothesis from clear cases, and then go on to check and refine it.

        <... >

> 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 < ...
> >

AN

2) As to the *conative force of the yiqtol YR$* please consider the following comment by Rashi: YYR$W L$WN HWWH KLWMR NTTY BHM KX $HYW MWRY$YM 'WTM WHLKYM, which I would translate as follows: "YYR$W-- (in) the meaning of present, that is, I put strength on them so that they were able to dispossess them and were continuing (to do so)."

        As to the Masoretic accent, I see in my Bible a Revia` on YYR$W. According to the experts, Revia` is a third-degree accent. Thus, the Atnah under TXTM divides the verse in two halves, the Zaqef on MPNYHM further divides the first half in two quarters, and the Revia` divides the first quarter of the first half in two eighths. This does not seem to contradict my interpretation, on the contrary.

        < ... >

> 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

3) I find it difficult to cope with the different views proposed concerning various *X- times*--event time, speech time, reference time, writing time, deictic time. My understanding is that BH has tenses, or mainline verbforms--wayyiqtol for the simple past in historical narrative, x-yiqtol and weqtal for the future in direct speech, and the nonverbal sentence for the present in direct speech. These designations reflect the time that the writer assigns to his information along the three temporal axes (past, future, and present), nothing else. These are *fix tenses*--fix in the sense that they indicate a location in time by themselves. Besides the fix tenses we also have *relative tenses*--relative to the fix tenses.  The relative tenses are expressed by the offline verbforms and nonverbal constructions. The rest seems to me irrelevant, maybe even confusing.

        < ... >

> 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!

AN

4) As I said, I do not know of any verb in BH being that is restricted to certain forms, or excluded from others, because of its semantic properties, except for stative verbs. Instead of asking me to propose examples, would you please propose a list of Hebrew verbs that satisfies your requirements (in order not to spend time in arguing on whether or not a certain verb belongs to the list). But once you have drawn the list, you can easily check the situation by yourself with the help of your computer.

        < ... >

> If you have a
> good definition of a clear and an
> obscure text, I will of course retract my
> suspiction of circularity

        < ... >

> 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.

AN

5) If you would care to consider, besides my _Syntax_ (1990), recent summary descriptions of the BH verb system, I hope that you would reconsider your suspicion, if not accusation, of circularity. You would see how I try to build a *theory* from the base to the top, from small units to larger structures, and hopefully realize that the tesserae of the mosaic fit rather well together. In case someone is interested, summary descriptions of mine of the BH verb system (in English) are as follows:

-  "An Outline of the Hebrew Verbal System in Prose", *Liber Annuus* 39 (1989) 7-26
- "On the Hebrew Verbal System", in: R. D. Bergen (ed.), _Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics_, Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994, 117-137
- "Essential Hebrew Syntax", in: E. Talstra, _Narrative and Comment. Contributions presented to Wolfgang Schneider_, Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995, 111-125
- "Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence. Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System", ZAW 108 (1996) 434-440
- "Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose", in: E. Wolde, van (ed.), _Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996_ (Biblical Interpretation Series 29), Leiden - New York - Köln: Brill, 1997, 167-202
- "Types and Functions of the Nominal Sentence", in: C. L. Miller (ed.), _The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistics Approaches_ (LSAWS 1), Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999, 215-248.

        The last title is on the nonverbal sentence in the framework of the overall verb system.
        Besides, if my research is circular, your appreciation of it is undeserved, is'nt it. Thanks anyway.

Peace and all good.

Alviero Niccacci

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email       mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il