Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,


Regarding Deuteronomy 2:12 we now have three suggested renderings in
addition to the rendering chosen by most Bible translations, which is
similar to the RSV rendering:

"The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the sons of Esau dispossessed
them, and destroyed them from before them, and settled in their stead;

The three suggestions are ((1) modal, (2) conative, (3) habitual:

(1) "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."

(2) "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,"

(3) "The sons of Esau used to dispossess them and they completely purged them
and they lived in the land in place of them."


When we ponder upon the Hebrew text, we should ask: I have learned that
YIQTOL never has the meaning of a simple past tense, but what is the basis
for this?  I know that this is written in my grammars, but why do the
grammars write this? Can it be that one grammar just repeat another
grammar, so all the witnesses we have against a simple past meaning of
YIQTOL can be reduced to one or a few? Why do most translations render the
YIQTOL of Deut. 2:12 and other YIQTOLs with simple past tense if this is
impossible? Can it be that this almost universal view that YIQTOL cannot
signify simple past is in need of revision?


We trust a physician who examines the eyes, more than one who just counts
them. Let us apply this illustration to YIQTOLs with past meaning. Are they
"counted" or "examined"? Consider the first YIQTOLs with past meaning in
the Bible:

(4) Gen. 2:5 when no plant of the field was (YIQTOL) yet in the earth and
no herb of the field had yet sprung up (YIQTOL) - for the LORD God had not
caused it to rain (QATAL) upon the earth, and there was (NOMINAL) no man to
till the ground;
Gen. 2:6 but a mist went up (YIQTOL) from the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground -

Most translations render the three YIQTOLs in these verses as simple past.
The first and the third describe states, which are durative by definition,
so it is difficult to argue that these states are modal or habitual or
volitional etc.The two YIQTOLS simply describe a state that once held. The
second is fientive, and the important question is: Do we get any clues from
lexicon, syntax, or context that can help us decide whether CMX in 2:5 is
simple past or modal or habitual or conative or the like? The answer is
that we can find nothing that is decisive! And the same is true with *all*
examples of verbs that have the semantic properties dynamicity and
durativity and the pragmatic property past meaning! As a matter of fact,
most examples of the YIQTOLs (bwtween 5 and 10% of all existing YIQTOLs)
with past meaning have these properties. This means that there is
absolutely nothing in the lexicon, syntax or grammar of most of the verbs
with past meaning that can help us decide whether their meaning is simple
past or conative, habitual, or modal. Thus, to quote examples of such verbs
that *CAN* be translated with conative, habitual, or modal meaning is
comparable to counting the eyes rather than examining them.


But why do almost all grammars ascribe the mentioned meaning to YIQTOLs
with past reference when it is impossible to find these meanings by help of
the YIQTOLs themselves? It was probably originally done (and later
repeated) because of a theory of another form, namely of the WAYYIQTOLs. If
the WAYYIQTOLs constitute a conjugation of their own and they are primarily
translated by simple past, then the YIQTOLs with past reference can of
course not have the same meaning! So one had to find another meaning for
these YIQTOLs, and the result is seen in modern grammars. The meaning
ascribed to YIQTOLs with past meaning, therefore, is wholly based upon
*theory* - the theory of the WAYYIQTOLs and not upon observation.

If we follow the basic principles of the philosophy of science, we learn
that even though it is not possible to demonstrate that YIQTOLs with past
meaning *cannot* be translated by simple past, the opposite *can* be
possible. If we find verbs that either are only dynamic (semelfactive verbs
such as "knock"), or dynamic and telic (achievements such as "reach the
top") we are, if the context is of the right kind, in a better position to
demonstrate that simple past is a legitimate rendering. Because WAW  is
extremely widespread in Hebrew and WAYYIQTOL  therefore is the narrative
form, there are just a few (less than 1000) examples of YIQTOL with past
meaning. The great part of these have the durative property and therefore
ara ambiguous as far as our question is concerned. However, the few that
fullfill our criteria (telic or dynamic/telic) should really be
scrutinized, because they are the only examples of YIQTOL with past meaning
where we by help of *the YIQTOL itself* ( and not only by theory) can learn
something about its meaning. By scrutinizing these we are "examining rather
than counting", but these forms have been shown little interest in the
past. Please consider the following two examples:

(5) Job 15:7  "Are you the first man that was born (YIQTOL) ? Or were you
brought forth (QATAL) before the hills?

Comments: The verb YLD  is either dynamic only (semelfactive) or dynamic
and telic (achievement). To translate "Where you the first man that would
be born","Where you the first man that tried to be born", or "Where you the
first man that used to be born." is simply nonsensical. Note also that the
parallel verb is a QATAL. It is extremely seldom that we can point to a
verb in a dead language and say that only one interpretation is possible,
but here we have a candidate to consider.

(6) Deut. 32:10  "He found him (YIQTOL) in a desert land, and in the
howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him (YIQTOL), he cared for
him (YIQTOL), he kept him (YIQTOL) as the apple of his eye. (Ps 116:3)

Comments: The three last YIQTOLs are durative, but the first - MC) is
either dynamic only (semelfactive) or dynamic and telic (achievement). To
translate "he would find", or "he tried to find", or "he used to find"
would in my view be special pleading, and the only reason for any of the
three would be to save a theory.

I will also give another example with a YIQTOL that is similar to the one
in Deut 2:12:

(7) Judg. 5:26 She put (YIQTOL) her hand to the tent peg and her right hand
to the workmen's mallet; she struck (WEQATAL) Sisera a blow, she crushed
(QATAL) his head, she shattered (WEQATAL) and pierced (WEQATAL) his temple.

Comments: The reason for the choice of YIQTOL rather than WAYYIQTOL is the
elements preceding the verb. We would hardly take this first verb as modal,
conative, or habitual and the other three as past indicative. Note also the
following combination WEQATAL, QATAL, WEQATAL, and WEQATAL.

Lastly I will again refer to the Aramaic of Daniel, where YIQTOL is a
normal form for simple past. In chapter four we find the following forms
with past meaning. The 16 examples of YIQTOL (two of which are dynamic and
telic) with past meaning do suggest that the Arameans saw no problem in
using YIQTOL for simple past:

QATAL 20
WE+QATAL 1
QATAL+PARTICIPLE 4
PARTICIPLE 7
PARTICIPLE+PARTICIPLE 4
YIQTOL 16
WE+YIQTOL 1

If we are dwarfs. we may see better if we stand on the shoulders of another
person. But if also this person stands on the shoulders of another person,
and this person again on another's shoulders, our foundation becomes very
shaky. When we start to study Hebrew, we have to take for granted what our
teachers and our grammars say. But when we progress, we should stop being
parrots and stand on other person's shoulders, and instead ourselves
examine our foundations with a critical mind. But it seems that the
paradigm (model) of Hebrew studies prevents this. There have been, and are
scores of great teachers,many whom I admire, but just a few in modern times
have asked critical questions regarding the very foundation of the paradigm
of Hebrew studies. A fine test for yourself: Did you for instance know it
is impossible by a study of the YIQTOLs with past meaning themselves to
demonstrate the restrictions and meanings that they are given in the
text-books?



PS. If you wonder why I write such long posts about Hebrew grammar, the
answer is that I am testing arguments in connection with the writing of my
thesis about Hebrew verbs. That is also  the reason why "I call a spade a
spade" as we say in Norway,i.e. why I directly adress the points in a frank
way. I respect all of you who have different opinions even though I argu
against them, and I appreciate that you help me with my research.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo