Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

Concerning the Akkadian, you were right on when you said you have to trust the
definitions in the beginning. Now I understood what you were illustrating 
with your
examples, but am not prepared to comment. I am still trusting definitions. I 
had not
observed to the level of detail that you would have me begin dialogue on, but 
rather
had only noticed that Akkadian has a number of prefixed forms, more than one 
of
which can be interpreted for past meaning, which all seem very similar
morphologically. This observation has led me feel that the multiple yiqtol 
idea has
some merit in Hebrew. Anyway, I will keep my eyes open for Huehnergard's
ambiguities.

Now I am familiar with the distinction between aspect and aktionsart (after 
all, W&O
describe it in 20.2 of their grammar), and I think your sensing confusion 
from me was
more a result of my befuddled mail than my lack of understanding of the 
distinction. In
my mail I was more concerned with looking at the ramifications of my 
perspective
(that the yiqtol was either durative or subjunctive, with an imperfective 
aspect) on the
consecutivity of the following vayyiqtol (which seems punctual and 
indicative, and
should be perfective according to my understanding), and I was really 
rambling on
about a point not terribly related to the issue you had brought up. In other 
words, I was
spinning off into a soliloquy. But thanks for trying to answer. I am glad I 
was made to
feel included in the dialogue.

Now after reading Peter Kirk's synopsis of your views on yiqtols, I would 
have to say
that you are what a German would call "bekloppt". I say this in all fun and 
friendship. At
any rate, I am wondering if you are the only one with this view, or if there 
are others
out there like you. Are there any published articles that you can refer me to 
that
describe this view? I am trying to round up a collection of wierd views on 
the Hebrew
verbal system in order to convince a professor of mine that he needs to offer 
a
Seminar on the subject during the semester after next. I am hoping to get 
word soon
from Dave Washburn that his views are in the mail, and I would like to know 
where I
can look at yours in a cleaner format. Though I am not quite to the level of 
cognitive
liberation that you described concerning Akkadian at this point, I am getting 
ready to
throw off my shackles when it comes to the Hebrew verb system. So helping me 
to
see what you are talking about in detail would be much appreciated.




"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
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Column/9707/index.html

---------- Original Message ----------

>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




>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.