Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter,
You did a fair job as far as I can see.  I won't speak for Rolf, but I do 
take 
exception to one statement in #3 below, q.v.

On Monday 15 August 2005 11:04, Peter Kirk wrote:
> I would like to bring some sanity to the recent discussions of WAYYIQTOL
> forms by explaining the situation as I understand it:
>
> 1) The traditional understanding of WAYYIQTOL is that when two or more
> WAYYIQTOLs follow one another in the text (with no other clause types
> intervening) they refer to a sequence of events - also that a WAYYIQTOL
> following a stative or continuing action (verbless or YIQTOL) clause
> refers to an event taking place while that state or continuing action is
> continuing.
>
> 2) There are some clear cases where this understanding needs to be
> adjusted. Certain scholars have put forward modified rules for WAYYIQTOL
> which fit a larger proportion of cases. Nevertheless, there remain a
> relatively small number of WAYYIQTOLs which cannot be sequential and do
> not fit any modified rules.
>
> 3) For some scholars, such as Rolf and Dave as I understand their wordk,
> this rather small number of exceptions is a problem. For they hold to
> theoretical models according to which exceptions to semantic rules are
> not possible. So, they are forced either to look for more and more
> intricate modifications to the rules to fit all of the data, or else, as
> Rolf has almost done, they end up denying that there are any semantic
> distinctions between Hebrew verb forms, and claiming that everything is
> pragmatic.

I do not hold to such a theoretical model.  In fact, a big feature of my 
approach that I haven't had a chance to develop fully yet, is what I call 
"social convention."  This is basically my model for how linguistic change 
takes place: words (and constructions) mean what they mean because a society 
chooses to use them that way.  At the same time, some sort of basic rule 
model has to be in place in the mind for any communication to take place.  A 
favorite, if quite silly, example comes from Bill Cosby.  He was talking 
about shooting the old "I Spy" TV show in Mexico, and he said this:

I say, "El burro es grande."  Then I point: "Please.  More food."

How many Spanish speakers would have a clue that "the donkey is large" means 
"more food"?  There have to be some agreed-upon patterns, if for no other 
reason than for us to know what the exceptions are.  I allow for all sorts of 
exceptions, especially in poetry.  However, within a given linguistic 
framework, especially in a synchronic setting, there is such a thing as "bad 
grammar."  I once knew a child who liked to say "so I says to myself, I says, 
self: here's what we're gonna do."  The tense mismatch, the repeated subject 
and verb, and the semantically-odd addressee all combine to make a structure 
that is, at least, odd, by anybody's standards.  Yet this person said it 
frequently.  It never caught on in the wider context of society, so it 
remains "bad grammar."

At the same time, virtually all uses that said society considers "good 
grammar" will have some sort of unifying factor, something that suggests WHY 
it's acceptable to use form X in both Y way and Z way, even though on the 
surface they might seem somewhat contradictory.  This is why the sequence 
idea won't work for the wayyiqtol: there's no way to find a unifying factor 
between sequence and non-sequence.  By definition, they're polar opposites.  
Hence, the unifying factor between these two types of usage must lie 
elsewhere.

My task is to locate that "elsewhere."  A side track of this research that I 
haven't really pursued with any kind of vigor, is the question: given that we 
can come up with some clue about the unifying factors of the verb system in 
BH, are there any non-poetic examples of "bad grammar" in the Hebrew Bible?  
My answer: I have no idea.  But it could turn out to be an interesting 
question for someone to explore.

Apart from that, and admittedly I can see how you came to the conclusion you 
did about my view of exceptions, I thought you represented my view quite 
fairly, and thank you for it.

> 4) For others, such as Yitzhak and myself (although for rather different
> reasons) and probably in practice the majority of scholars, it is to be
> expected that even the best semantic rules will have some exceptions.
> For language is intrinsically dynamic and variable, and anyway the texts
> we have are not pure. We are not making any strong claims for the
> meaning of WAYYIQTOL which can be falsified by a few counter-examples,
> we are only outlining general meanings of verb forms which may be
> cancelled in specific contexts. The precise meaning in each case is
> determined not only by the verb form but by how it works in the context.
>
> Dave, Rolf and Yitzhak, I hope I have been fair to you here.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have 
married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)