Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,

I appreciate your post because it illuminates the need to give some more 
explanations, particularly regarding semantics, which may be hard to 
grasp.  It is extremely important to understand what my "less than one 
per cent" examples  are and what they are not.  I will illustrate the 
case with a quote from A. E. Revell, who discusses whether there is 
another element in the WAY(Y)-prefix than WAW. (1984). "Stress and the 
waw  "consecutive" in biblical Hebrew", Journal of the American Oriental 
Society, 104:437-444.

> Suggestions that the prefix to waw consecutive imperfect verb forms 
> is, or includes, some verbal or adverbial element, as Hetzron, op. 
> cit. [1969, see my note 66], p. 9, are to be rejected...If the waw is 
> the conjunction, the supposed additional element should be 
> recognizable sometimes when the conjunction is not prefixed, and if 
> the waw is not the conjunction, we need an explanation of why clauses 
> with initial waw consecutives should be the only group not regularly 
> introduced by a conjunction.

Revell's point here is that if there is another element in WAY(Y)-, in 
most instances when we find a WAYYIQTOL, this element cannot be seen.  
But in particular instances - and these must necessarily be few - this 
element must be seen if it exists.  Thus, those who argue for the 
existence of such an element must look for these few instances.  Please 
note that what we are speaking about is graphical proof for this 
supposed element, but there are of course many other ways by which a 
scholar can use different kinds of evidence in favor of, or against the 
view that there is an adverbial element inside the WAY(Y)- prefix.

I do not suggest an emendation of traditional viewpoints on the basis of 
less than one percent of the Hebrew verbs. I discuss and analyze clauses 
from the Tanakh with about 5,000 verbs in my dissertation, and these 
verbs clearly argue in favor of my two-component model.  However, when i 
speak of conclusive evidence that WAYYIQTOLs are imperfective, this 
evidence can only be obtained in four particular situations:  conative 
situations, particular ingressive situations, particular resultative 
situations, and situations where on verb intersects a state or event 
expressed by a WAYYIQTOL.  These situations are few, less than one 
percent of all situations.  But the evidence (though not what I would 
call "conclusive evidence") from thousands of other verbs is in my view 
overwhelming.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



I do not suggest an

Karl Randolph wrote:

> Dear Rolf:
>
> In general I agree with you in your methodology, looking at uses where one 
> meaning is demanded by the context, and then applying that across other uses 
> where the context is not so clear. I agree with other aspects, such as that 
> mentioned below. In fact I use them when I analyse the definitions of words 
> for lexicography.
>
> But
>
> I prefer not to innovate unless there are strong semantic and/or linguistic 
> reasons to question earlier lexicography. Further, most of the times I do 
> question, I find my questions deal more with the shading of meaning and not a 
> completely different meaning.
>
> Secondly, unless a lexeme, its root and other derivitives from that root are 
> used less than five to ten times, one use is not enough for me to use it as 
> defining the meaning for the lexeme. Nor would I make that one use sufficient 
> to overrule a clear understanding of the lexeme from other contexts as that 
> one use could be a typo, special use, mispointed, loan word from another 
> language or I misunderstand the context.
>
> You propose that we amend our understanding of Hebrew aspect based on less 
> than 1% of verbal usage. I agree with Peter Kirk that this percentage is too 
> low to convince. Further, there are too many times where the use seems to 
> contradict your theory.
>
> Based on reading Tanakh through a few times, I have come to the conclusion 
> that the ancient Hebrews were more fluid in their use of aspect than what 
> modern grammarians like to admit. Therefore, any theory based on less than 1% 
> is going to be a tough sell, at the very least.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
>
>  
>
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I have striven hard to exclude as much as possible of preconceived ideas 
> > from my study of Hebrew verbs, and my model is very simple: 1)  I assume 
> > that the Semites of old used their language (verbs, substantives, 
> > adjectives etc.) in a similar way as modern people do, and 2) I assume 
> > that some parts of the Hebrew language will have the same meaning in any 
> > context.
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> >
> > University of Oslo
> >