Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Thia question is more addressed to the isrealis among us?

How are the verbs in modern hebrew understood? Is there more 
of an emphasis on tense or an aspect? Or are there different 
circumstances in which one prevails over the other while using 
the same basic form?


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Shoshanna Walker
Sent: Tue 7/26/2005 2:19 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS. Was " masorete pointing v's      LLX 
transliterations"
 
Dear Shoshanna,

I use the expression "verb form" to refer to any part of the verbal system
that in one way ore another can be distinguished from other parts, e.g.
YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, qal, hiphil, participle, infinitive absolute etc.



That's what I though.  So aren't there way more than 4 or 5?

Shoshanna




Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS. Was " masorete pointing v's LLX
transliterations"


> What's a "verb FORM"?
>
> Are you talking about "tenses"?
>
> Shoshanna
>
>
>>
>>
>>
> Maybe I was a little unfair to Rolf. After all, he has the right not to
> reply if he doesn't want to. However, my critique of his argument does
> not depend on our different theoretical standpoints. I would like to
> summarise here Rolf's arguments as I understand them, with some comments
> of mine in [...]
>
> 1) Many scholars have assumed that there are four different verb forms
> in Hebrew. From this assumption they have not surprisingly concluded
> that there is a fourfold semantic distinction. [This is fair comment.]
>
> 2) The evidence that there were originally four different verb forms is
> not entirely compelling, because some of the distinctions may be
> artefacts of the Masoretes. [I accept that the issue is not entirely
> provable either way.]
>
> 3) Although it is not entirely proved, an assumption will be made that
> there are only two different verb forms. [Is this true, Rolf, or are you
> actually claiming to have proved that there are only two different verb
> forms in advance of your analysis of all the verbs in the Hebrew Bible?]
>
> 4) On this assumption, all of the verb forms in the Hebrew Bible are
> analysed according to a complex and controversial linguistic model. The
> results of this analysis are that there are only two semantically
> distinct Hebrew verb forms, and that the distinction can be called one
> of "aspect" although it is different from the normal concept of "aspect"
> as defined by linguists. [The details of this analysis are in fact
> irrelevant to the argument here - although I dispute some of those
> details.]
>
> 5) The conclusions are reached that (a) there are only two semantically
> distinct verb forms in Hebrew, and (b) these have a certain "aspectual"
> significance. [But I note that (a) is simply a restatement of the
> initial assumption - at least, the number of semantically distinct verb
> forms cannot be greater than the total number of verb forms, although it
> just could be smaller.]
>
> 6) Traditional Hebrew grammar and most Bible translations are based on a
> model of four semantically distinct verb forms. Such a model is
> necessarily inconsistent with the "conclusion" (a) that there are only
> two semantically distinct verb forms. Therefore, "An acceptance of the
> conclusions would have a great impact on Bible translation, because
> thousands of verbs in modern Bible translations are in need of
> re-translation." [But I note that this final statement depends only on
> "conclusion" (a), for it applies irrespective of the precise semantic
> distinction which is conclusion (b). It also applies in the possible
> alternative situation that there are just two verb forms which are not
> semantically distinct.]
>
> So, it seems that Rolf could have skipped his study of all of the verb
> forms in the Hebrew Bible, and saved himself several years. For his
> final result that "thousands of verbs in modern Bible translations are
> in need of re-translation" depends only on his initial assumption that
> there are only two verb forms in Hebrew, whether or not they are
> semantically distinct. Well, I suppose that exactly how they should be
> re-translated depends on the semantic distinction and conclusion (b).
>
> Rolf, is this a fair summary of your arguments?
>
> It seems to me, rather, that Rolf has proved that there are two
> alternative models for the Hebrew verb, one with four semantically
> distinct verb forms and one with two such verb forms. He claims that the
> latter, his own model, is internally consistent, just as the former is
> internally consistent. But his method can offer us no way of determining
> which of these two consistent models is in fact correct, because his
> initial assumption that the first model is incorrect implies that his
> method is incapable in principle of demonstrating this.
>
> How can we resolve this issue? Well, looking at ancient translations
> e.g. LXX is likely to be very helpful, assuming that these translations
> are at least approximately correct. I have also attempted to argue that
> Rolf's model is not in fact internally consistent and so only the other
> model is possible. But that is not my main focus here.
>
> If Rolf wants to overturn an understanding of Hebrew grammar which has
> become well entrenched for many centuries, he needs to do better than to
> come up with an alternative internally consistent model. He needs to
> prove somehow that the traditional model is wrong. And this is what he
> has entirely failed to do, because his method is in principle incapable
> of doing so.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Tue Jul 26 09:58:54 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBE74C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:58:53 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.51)
        id 1DxPx2-0000w1-Mh; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:58:51 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.5]);
        Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:58:39 +0100
Message-ID: <42E6418F.80408 AT qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:58:39 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
References: <v04210101bf0be8bffd8f@[64.3.184.93]>
In-Reply-To: <v04210101bf0be8bffd8f@[64.3.184.93]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] VERBS. Was " masorete pointing v's      LLX
        transliterations"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:58:54 -0000

On 26/07/2005 14:19, Shoshanna Walker wrote:

>Dear Shoshanna,
>
>I use the expression "verb form" to refer to any part of the verbal system
>that in one way ore another can be distinguished from other parts, e.g.
>YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, qal, hiphil, participle, infinitive absolute etc.
>
>
>
>That's what I though.  So aren't there way more than 4 or 5?
>
>
>
Well, Rolf's use is slightly different from mine, but Rolf also uses the
word "conjugation" which is confusing. But this usage of the word "form"
is also confusing, because "form" usually means a specific set of
letters, points etc., which I have called a "surface form" below. A
better word would be a paradigm, each of which consists of separate
(surface) forms for each person, number, gender etc.

Here is the picture as I understand it:

 From each Hebrew verb root there are up to seven binyanim, often
referred to as "conjugations" (but this is not Rolf's terminology), such
as qal, hiphil, piel. (Qal passive should probably be understood as a
separate binyan, or else most binyanim can be divided into
active/passive pairs.)

Then for each of those binyanim there are a number of forms or paradigms
- in principle each of those forms occurs in each binyan. These forms
can be divided into "infinite" forms, which are infinitives and
participles, and "finite" forms. (But this terminology is misleading
because the participle can also be used as a finite form, the present
tense, although morphologically it is not finite because it does not
have separate personal forms.) The imperative is technically a "finite"
form but is not usually considered in the counting of two, four or five
forms that we have been using.

And then for each "finite" form or paradigm of each binyan there are
separate surface forms for each of the three persons in singular and
plural, and sometimes also gender distinctions.

So, for each binyan we have a "perfect" form or QATAL, and at least one
"imperfect" form or YIQTOL. In fact there seem to be two YIQTOL forms,
the regular and full "imperfect", and the "jussive" which has a distinct
modal meaning and sometimes, e.g. in "lamed-he" verbs and the hiphil
binyan, also a set of surface forms which are shortened (apocopated)
and/or have a shifted stress. ("Jussive" forms are nearly always third
person; the relationship with the first person "cohortative" is
complex.) And then for each of these there is the possibility of
prefixing the conjunction WE-, i.e. vav with sheva. When WE- is prefixed
to QATAL, the meaning, or at least the usage, seems to be different from
"and" plus the regular QATAL.

And then there is the controversial WAYYIQTOL form or paradigm. In the
consonantal form this looks identical to WE- followed by YIQTOL, almost
always the shortened "jussive" version where there is a distinction (but
WAYYIQTOL can be in all three persons). But the Masoretes pointed
WAYYIQTOL distinctively, with patah and dagesh (or with qamats before
alef in 1st person singular forms) rather than with sheva. This
consistent distinction implies to me that this is a distinct verb form,
which is likely, although not certain, to have distinct semantics. But
Rolf and I disagree here.

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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005