Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The translation of ehyeh

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The translation of ehyeh
  • Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:12:38 -0400



Alberto Arena wrote:
Dear Bryan,

I am new to b-hebrew, anyway as I said you privately your work is worth of appreciation. I enjoyed your text-segmentation comments, but
I can't grasp fully why do you think that initial yiqtol would have a
*semantical* meaning different from dependent yiqtol. I suppose your
idea depends on textual analysis you made. In your analysis of Psa
107, e.g., you affirm that the use of sequential yiqtols means
volitive action, and so direct speech by YHWH. The same for Isa 52-53
translation as you gave us on this list.

I am not sure what you mean by "sequential yiqtols." In my posts about Isaiah 52-53 and Psa 107, I tried to maintain a consistent interpretation of clause-initial yiqtols as volitive. I think there were a couple of exceptions.


Of course I agree that yiqtol can be used as volitive and/or modal.
But the idea that position of a verb form is critical to understand
its meaning is not fully convincent. I believe your model is
esentially based more on pragmatics than on semantics. Anyway, can you give us more details? Thanks in advance

The idea that syntax can impact how to read a verb feels new to many people because they have not been thoroughly trained in this way, but it is indeed basic to reading Hebrew.

Every beginning student of Hebrew is introduced to the significance of word order. We perfectly well understand and have been trained to appreciate the difference between an X-Qatal clause (which has the qatal verb in the second position within its clause) and a weqatal clause (in which the qatal is clause-initial). We translate ve'abraham yashav as "but Abraham sat" and veyashab 'abraham as "and Abraham will sit." What is the difference that gives us "sat" and "will sit"? Really only word order. By the way, do you realize that in narrator's text in Hebrew prose (narrator's text is all the text that is not direct speech), qatal (without a vav, ie. not weqatal) essentially _never_ appears as a first word in a clause? Interesting! In direct speech the situation is a little different. A qatal may be the first word in the first clause of a speech. After that qatal will not genrally appear as a first word in a clause. I bore you with these details to demonstrate to you how constrained and significant BH syntax is.

BH has a paucity of words for modal concepts like we express in English with _would, should, may, might, could, ought, will, shall, want_ But we cannot expect that native speakers of BH could not express such concepts. I believe that one of the ways the language makes up for the lack of modal words is by manipulating word order.

In my model, basically a discourse analytical model based on Niccacci and many other linguists, there are a number of discourse genres, each of which accomplishes a particular "universal language task." For instance, people need to tell stories, tell other people how to do things, explain how they feel, expose the truth, make predictions, command others in any culture and language. A different discourse genre evolves to accomplish each of these universal language tasks. BH is no different.

This model has import for the study of syntax and verbal semantics. An interesting pattern emerges of we study the distribution of clause types in BH. Most of the BH genres have a mainline of communication that utilizes a verb-first clause type. Historical narrative discourse uses the wayyiqtol; Predictive narrative uses the weqatal; Hortatory discourse uses clause-initial forms based on the yiqtol like the imperative, jussive, and cohortative, to name a few.

I am over-simplifying the model because I am really trying only to give you an idea of how the place of a verb in its clause can impact how to read that verb. You wonder if my view of the verbal semantics is misnamed because it is, after all, pragmatics. Yes and no. I do not believe we can separate verbal semantics, syntax, and pragmatics when it comes to comprehending BH.

I never really set out to learn(or teach) Hebrew. Learnign Hebrew is only a means to an end. What I really like to learn (and teach) is how to better comprehend the Hebrew Bible.

Hoping to help,
Bryan


Regards,
Alberto Arena



2005/8/4, B. M. Rocine <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>:

Hi Harold,

Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

Alviero Niccacci wrote:

Exod. 3:14a should then be translated: "I will be [first-place, volitive
yiqtol: I promise I will be, i.e. for you] what I was [yiqtol for habitual
past, i.e. or your Fathers]."


HH: To me this is odd translation, taking the same verb and giving it
two different interpretations within three words.


You are seeing the neatness of the Niccacci model. To him, the type of
clause and the position within the clause are critical to understanding
the meaning of a verb form. It would be great, if you would want to
learn more about Niccacci to read his "A Neglected Point of Hebrew
Syntax: _yiqtol_ and position in the sentence." Liber Anus (1987)
39:310-327. It may be available on the net.

In summary, a yiqtol in first position (the first ehyeh) is volitional,
but yiqtol in a dependent clause (the second ehyeh) expresses future or
habitual past.

I have studied all the weyiqtols in the Tanakh as a means of testing
Niccacci's claims about clause-initial yiqtols and found them to be 98%
volitional or ambiguous (IOW only 2% clear counter-examples).



--
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Chruch
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13026
(W): 315.437.6744




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page