Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)
  • Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:18:24 +1000


Hi Herman,

Note, though, that Hatav's article contains errors and other doubtful assertions (again, in my opinion, as in all things different people will take different theoretical stances). Eg:

1. Pg 493,n.6 she builds her case on a corpus of Gen-2 Kings (which is fine, we all must impose limits on our study), but then attributes this to "the First Temple period" so that she might assume her synchronic study. This is doubtful in the light of recent research, particuarly the JSOTSS book edited by Ian Young.

2. Page 494, section 2, par 1 (also repeated on pg 497). Her assertion that the yiqtol in wayyiqtol is the same, synchronically, as yiqtol - even if diachronically unrelated - is simply not true. This, I think, is her biggest error, and leads her on to propose what she does about the clitic -ay- in that it is the verbal complement of the definite article (Testen also argues for this in his monograph (but differently) which is surprisingly unreferenced by Hatav). All this is built on the presumption that the yiqtol in wayyiqtol corresponds to yiqtol and thus needs the marker of definiteness to allow it to function in predications which are past perfective etc. Such a view which flies in the face of the diachronic evidence needs to be carefully explained diachronically (and, even more helpfully, typologically) in that a) how the two diachronically divergent forms came to be related in the one they have; and b) how the divergent diachronic semantics came to be resolved in the preference for (long) yiqtol (a question related to a). These are questions unanswered by Hatav, but in my view need to be for the view to become "the default way of looking at BHebrew grammar" as you predict.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


Dear list members,
! שלום לכם
I don't know if I said there are no tenses in Hebrew;
I do largely agree with Galia Hatav (Journal of Linguistics, november 2004).
For example, C1 gemination in noun and verb anchor the noun or verb to
"this world" => definite noun or simple past verb (point in time) (I
guess you can call wayyiqtol a tense, then); whereas yiqtol or non-C1
geminated noun are yet "undefined". Galia and I came up with that
theory independently; therefore it must be true. All credits to her of
course, she really worked it out. Her article is very strongly
recommended.
That's all the fresh stuff I can offer.
Fifty years from now, it'll be the default way of looking at BHebrew grammar. :)
I think it makes a lot of sense.
best regards,
Herman






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page