Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Rolf, thanks for your reply.  I really feel that I understand your model
better now than ever, mostly as a result of your comments about Psa
107:19-20 specifically.

You wrote:

<noted and snipped>

> So to verses 19-20 that you ask about. I interpret the verbs like this:
>
> 19. the WAYYIQTOL- imperfective "they began calling",
> 19.

For years now--can you believe how time flies?-- this has been a difficult
feature of your model for me to swallow: that a wayyiqtol that you alledge
to be imperfective is used most often in a context that features the advance
of time.  In my understanding of aspect, the advance of time would favor, if
not require, a perfective form.  But I may be understanding you.  Let me see
if I can explain, in your view, how an imperfective form can be used in a
passage where story time advances.

Wayyiqtol refers to a situation that obtains (essentially saying that it
begins) but the verb form doesn't by itself indicate anything about the
situation's completion.  The verb form leaves, in and of itself, the
situation open on the anterior end, because it is imperfective.  Then, in a
text, along comes the next wayyiqtol, a new beginning.  A new beginning
usually (but not necessarily) *implies* the ending of the previous
situation.  IOW, one situation is now usually *inferred* to be complete
simply because a new one has obtained or begun.

This view of wayyiqtol seems rather like that of S.R. Driver, no?

>.the use of a the YIQTOL: (1) "he saved them," or (1) "he caused them to be
> saved," or (3) "he always saved them". the  imperfective aspect is
> used to expressed an action that was completed before the deictic
> centre. But where does reference time intersect event time? In a
> translation with ordinary people as the target group I would have
> used (1 or (3)). It is a myth that YIQTOL with past reference
> indicates the so-called "durative past" I would say that what is made
> visible by the YIQTOL either is a small part of the saving event (RT
> intersects ET at the nucleus (1)), or the habitual act of saving (2).

Rolf, You seem to be accepting a difference between wayyiqtol and weyiqtol
after all, if not a semantic difference, a pragmatic difference, that is, at
least most of the time, *rightly coded by Masoretic pointing*.  I am
understanding you correctly?

Thanks again, Bryan

>
> 20: The one YIQTOL and the two WEYIQTOLs have the same imperfective
> force. I will translate either (1)  "He continued to send his word
> and heal them, and he rescued them from the pit, or (2) "He sent his
> word and healed them, and he rescued them from the pit." In (1) the
> habitual element is stressed, and (2) does not stress anything
> particular. I would say that what is made visible by the YIQTOL and
> the first WEYIQTOL is a small part in the middle with details visible
> (RT intersects ET at the nucleus); the last WEYIQTOL which is in the
> Piel stem, may be resultative (RT intersects ET after the end).
>
> As to the WEYIQTOLs in the past context, I take them as an example of
> the problems the Masoretes had when they should differentiate between
> WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in poetic texts. It seems to me that the
> Masoretes would use WAY(Y)  in past contexts and WE(Y) in future and
> modal contexts. But when the temporal/modal reference was not clear,
> they often "erred" in relation to this scheme.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
>
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
> >Dear Rolf, couldn't you simply explain, from your view, how to read this
> >brief passage?
> >
> >Thanks, Bryan
> >
> >you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>  Dear Bryan and others,
> >>
> >>  Those really interested in the Hebrew conjugations and the basis for
> >>  Masoretic pointing should analyze all the 43 verses of this Psalm and
> >>  compare them with modern Bible translations. Regardless of which
> >>  temporal reference one applies to the different parts of this Psalm,
> >  > it is impossible to get a coherent picture, if the traditional view
> >>  is presumed - that WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL are different conjugations
> >>  compared with YIQTOL and QATAL.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Best regards
> >>
> >>  Rolf
> >>
> >>
> >>  Rolf Furuli
> >>  University of Oslo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  >B-Haveray,
> >>  >
> >>  >I have a little passage here that may relate to our discussion of
whether
> >>  >wayyiqtol and weyiqtol are distinct.  I would be interested in your
> >comments
> >>  >about the use/meaning of the verb
> >>  >forms and syntax in this passage, shown translated below in the JPS
> >Tanakh:
> >>  >
> >>  >Psalm 107:19 In their adversity they cried (wayyiqtol) to the LORD
and He
> >  > >saved (X-yiqtol) them from their troubles. 20 He gave (yiqtol) an
order
> >and
> >>  >healed (weyiqtol) them; He delivered (weyiqtol) them from the pits.
21
> >Let
> >>  >them praise (clause-initial yiqtol) the LORD for His steadfast love
> >>  >
> >B. M. Rocine
> >Living Word Church
> >6101 Court St. Rd.
> >Syracuse, NY 13206
> >
> >ph: 315.437.6744
> >fx: 315.437.6766
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew