Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Title: RE: Hebrew Syntax.

Rolf, I come with the observation that there are prefix forms and suffix forms, that the latter have a variety of shorter and longer forms, that some of these forms are prefixed with a simple WAW (which I do not define a priori to be a conjunction), and that some (at least in the Masoretic pointing, which needs to be evaluated separately) are prefixed with WAW, patah and doubling of the initial consonant. No one can claim to come with no presuppositions, but I am open to recognize those presuppositions (when pointed out e.g. by you) and attempt to work around them. But I rule nothing out a priori.

 

Peter Kirk

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Furuli [mailto:furuli AT online.no]
Sent: 12 April 2002 12:34
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: Hebrew Syntax.

 

Dear Peter,

 

 

Three simple questions in order for me to better understand you: When you enagage in discourse analysis, do you presume that there are four different conjugations in  Hebrew (YIQTOL, QATAL, WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL)? Or do you start with the observation that Hebrew has prefix-forms and and suffix-forms, and some of each group are prefixed by the conjunction WAW? Or are you saying that you have no presuppositions at all?

 

 

Regards

 

Rolf

 

 

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

 

 

 

 

 

Rolf, you have shown here that you totally misunderstand both discourse analysis and proper scientific procedure. I don't think DA assumes a priori that these WAWs have different functions. I certainly do not and have explicitly rejected this view. We are open to both possibilities, either all WAWs have the same meaning or there are two or more different meanings. We note that (speaking generally) even the identical form can have different meanings and/or discourse functions in different contexts, and also we note a difference of form here which may or may not be significant. So we do not assume a priori that even the same form (let alone different forms) must always have the same meaning. This seems to be your a priori assumption concerning the prefix WAW. You insist that everyone else follows this a priori assumption. You neither yourself examine nor allow other to examine the evidence that WAW has different meanings in different contexts. This is unscientific, and as a result your whole dissertation, despite its promising introduction, is fatally flawed. Yes, Rolf, I know those are strong words. I invite anyone else on this list to tell me if they judge them unjustified.

 

You assert that "if the WAW prefixed to a verb "has a specific discourse function" this should be true in ALL instances where the WAW is prefixed to the verb". But this is your assertion and not mine; rather, I suggest that WAW is polysemous or at least has a range or shades of meaning. My method would at least in principle allow that even in WAYYIQTOL forms the WAW may have various different meanings, including a simple conjunction as well as perhaps various different discourse functions. So my method cannot be attacked by your demonstrations that not all WAYYIQTOLs have the same meaning or place in the discourse. Anyway, your specific examples demonstrate your ignorance of how these verses would be understood in discourse analysis. In Zechariah 10:3 your "little doubt that the temporal reference for all the verbs is future" is not shared by almost all of the English versions on my shelf: KJV, English RV, Ferrar Fenton, RSV, NRSV, JPS Tanakh, and NLT (Only NIV and TEV translate the last three verbs as all future, as does LXX) and so your whole argument is based on an assertion without evidence.

 

Peter Kirk

 

 

 

2