Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Prophetic Perfect? Psalm 107

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Prophetic Perfect? Psalm 107
  • Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 21:57:08 +0200

Dear Peter,

In order to have an intelligent exchange, please answer the question
I posed to Vadim: If you use a modern linguistic approach, how can
you know whether the WAYYIQTOL of )MR in Gen 1:3 has past reference
because past tense is a *semantic* part of the form or whether the
past reference is *pragmatic*?
(It is quite interesting that M. P. Streck (1995) Zahl und Zeit
Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen,
pp. 107-108 refers to several examples of past reference of the verb
QABU ("to say") in the IPARRAS conjugation, which is believed to be
a counterpart to Hebrew YIQTOL. I have also found several similar
examples with that verb in my own reading of Akkadian documents.

Also, please address my Phoenician examples (and similar examples
from the Amarna letters) of infinitive absolutes functioning as
finite verbs with past reference. Do they represent past tense
("grammaticalized location in time"), or is their past reference just
pragmatic?

When this is done, we may have an intelligent discussion of the
hypothetical deductive method, where one million confirmatory
examples do not prove a hypothesis, but where one certain
counter-example falsifies it.



Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


On 20/05/2004 14:01, furuli AT online.no wrote:


...

To ignore the examples that contradict one's view with the argument
that they are errors, does not recommend itself as a good
scientific method. Errors will occur, but they must be shown to be
errors on the basis of a scientific analysis. If you have studied
the Philosophy of science, you should be familiar with the problem
of induction; one million white swans do not prove that all swans
are white, but two black swans, who are not dyed or have gone
through a fire, will falsify the hypothesis. Thus, the 1.000
non-past WAYYIQTOLs are a stronger basis for saying that WAYYIQTOL
is not semantically speaking past tense than the 12.000 WAYYIQTOLs
occurring in past narratives. ...


Your argument from swans is an interesting one. Suppose we do find a
million white swans and two black ones. What do we conclude? Of
course not that all swans are white. But we suspect that there is
some reason for the exceptions. Maybe the black ones are a different
species, or mutations. Or maybe they have been in some special
environment which has changed their colour. Good scholars will look
for a reason. But they will not argue that "not all swans are white,
therefore the colour of swans is irrelevant". However, that seems to
be how you argue when you reject the significance of the observation
that the great majority of WAYYIQTOLs are sequential, and most of
these are in past context although some are future because they
follow future verb forms.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page