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: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:05:35 +1000


Hi Rolf,

A few more comments, and questions, below.

[snip]


RF:
Grammaticalization processes are common in all languages, and I myself use
the example with the participle in Rabbinic Hebrew to illustrate it. The
very high percentage
of WAYYIQTOLs with past reference (93,1 % of 15,536 verbs according to my
analysis) could suggest such a grammaticalization process. However, there
are several strong reasons to reject this. It is believed that scribes
choosing the WAYYIQTOL form would generally choose the short form of the
verb. But the fact is that 73 % of all WAYYIQTOLs are long. If quantity
were the criterion, we had to conclude that the long form was generally
used. But the fact is that most of the mentioned 73 % simply cannot be
short, so they tell us nothing about which form is choosen; quality is a
better criterion than quantity.

OK, we'll have to differ in our interpretation of the evidence (at least until I can read your entire argument in your dissertation with the possibility that I may be convinced of it). I focus on the tendency for where apocopation CAN occur, it often does with wayyiqtol, unlike (we)yiqtol; whereas you downplay this tendency in preference for noticing an aspectual similarity, albeit modified.

I have already argued that narrative verbs *must* have past reference, so
again, the high
percentage is not necessarily the right basis for a conclusion.

Grammaticalization is a unidirectional process, and if such a process has
occurred in connection with WAYYIQTOL, we would expect to find diachronic
evidence of more and more specialization in the direction of past reference,
but that is not the case. Moreover, in many cases it is possible to show
that WAYYIQTOL has imperfective characteristics, and in other instances it
can be demonstrated that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL are semantically similar. On
this basis we can view all prefix forms as one group. And the 13,539
WAYYIQTOLs, 1,027 YIQTOLs, and 50 WEYIQTOLs with past reference constitute
only 49.8 % of all prefix forms.


I agree that grammaticalisation is a unidirectional process, even though this is often challenged in the linguistic literature. I wonder if your figures would be different if you removed poetry, but still keep direct speech. You may not agree with me that the alternation between verbal forms in Hebrew poetry is simply often poetic rather than to semantically differentiate actions, but I would be interested in the different analysis. Personally, I cannot accept these statistics unless it is presented in this way because of my opinion regarding Hebrew poetry.

If one does allow for the inclusion of tense (even if incorporated with an aspectual understanding) into the Hebrew verbal system at the same time as viewing wayyiqtol and (we)yiqtol as semantically distinct, then it is not surprising that the combining of wayyiqtol with (we)yiqtol as you have done produces a result where this combined prefix category produces a result of 49.8% of forms having "past reference". That is, to my way of thinking it is not surprising that combining a past tense form with a present-future tense form into one statistical category will produce mixed results whereby only 49.8% of forms are used for past reference.

[snip]

> OK, this is where I really have trouble comprehending, esp. option 3).
> How might you understand Ruth 1:3, for example - wayyamot - in the light
> of your theory? Option 1) doesn't really work - "he began to die".
> Option 2 doesn't really work - "continued to die". And option 3 doesn't
> really work as the verb doesn't express the end of a predication but the
> whole perfective event of the death.

Persons with Indo-European minds often have problems in connection with
resultative and factitive situations in Hebrew (situations where the agent
leads the patient through the end of an action and into a resultant state,
or directly into such a state) , because this concept is little used in
English and other modern languages.. A good example is the Hebrew BRK
versus the English verb "bless". Of this Hebrew verb, 71,2 % of the
occurrences are Piel, which often is resultative/factitive, and the other
occurrences conforms with this. I would argue that in Hebrew thought the
stress is on the condition of approval, grace, holiness and not on the
action
itself.

Resultative and factitive situations can be expressed by diathesis (the
stems, particularly the Piel stem) or by the imperfective aspect. I have
systematically studied this in
differnt Semitic languages, and I am in line with the excellent exposition
of Piel by Waltke/O´Connor. Joshua 7:6 NIV says, "Joshua...
fell facedown before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening.". In
Hebrew there is just one verb, but in English there are two. The reason is
that NPL is viewed as a punctiliar verb, and we cannot fathom a punctiliar
event lasting until the evening. Lexicons try to solve the problem by
saying that NPL both means "to fall" and "to lie prostrate," but evidence is
lacking. I have analyzed all the occurrences of this verb and there is
absolute no evidence for a stative lexical meaning. What the authors fail to
see is that the notion "to lie prostrate for a time" is not caused by
lexicon but
by grammar, namely, by the imperfective verb (again, semantics versus
pragmatics).
So I would argue that the WAYYIQTOL in this verse is resultative. The action
ended when the earth was
reached (note the he locale), and the resultant state continued until the
evening.
There are many similar events where we need two verbs in English.

I would argue in a similar way in connection with Ruth 1:3. I once
translated the Ethiopic Enoch into Norwegian, and in connection with that I
made a thorough study of the Hebrew and Ge´ez parallels NP$-NAFS,
RWX-MANFAS, $)WL-SIOL, and GY) HNM (GEHENNA)-TAHTIT. The conclusion was
that the views of the writers of Enoch and the Tanakh are diametrically
opposite: the Enoch writers believing in an intrinsic human immortality and
conscious life after death, while the writer of the Tanakh viewed death as
no life
in any form (the same state as an animal, Eccl 3:19)..

However, if we consider the importance for a Hebrew of old to be buried in
particular graves, and if we look at the words that are used in connection
with many deaths in Israel,
such as "being gathered to their forefathers" and "coming to the dead," I at
least, get a strong impression that death was not viewed as "the land on no
return," as did the Babylonians. Suggestions in the Tanakh corroborates this
(e.g. Is 26:19; Job 14:13,14; Hos 13:14, and Dan 12:13). Looking at the
situation from the point of view of persons living in the first century
C:E., Jesus compares death with sleep (John 11:11-13), Martha was already
familiar
with the view of a resurrection on the last day (John 11:24), and Jesus
finds hints at a resurrection in Ex 3:6 (Luke 20:37, 38). My point with
these
passages is to show that the state of being dead was of paramount
importance for those who wrote the Tanakh, and this corroborates my
grammatical argument that the WAYYIQTOL of Ruth 1:3 is resultative.

I will add that of the 1,027 YIQTOLs with past reference, there are 303 that
are telic and 104 that are semelfactive. Particularly the last group
is interesting, since the members parallel Ruth 1:3; the difference being
that they are YIQTOLs, yet they portray events that we view as instantaneous
without expressing the so-called "durative past" or iterativity.


I agree wholeheartedly regarding your assessment of Hebraic conceptions of death (I've published an article on Job which in part looks at death in this work). But your whole discussion here seems elaborate to descibe a prima facie perfective. The point of the use of wayyamot is surely to simply say that a death has occured. In any case, semelfactives do often not exclude iterativity, although wayyamot does. Further, are not semelfactives characterised by the fact that they are punctual events events having no resultant state (eg "I coughed"; "the man knocked on the door"; etc)? Again, this is unlike what seems to be expressed by wayyamot (at least from the prespective of the story and Naomi's).

Some other examples: Gen 4:1 - here again the wayyiqtol verbs, prima facie, refer to perfective events. And what about the common verb of speech, wayyo'mer? Doesn't this refer to the whole, perfective speech act, not just a portion of it? Regarding yiqtol, in Gen 18:10, isn't it referring here to a perfective, future event (ie the imperfective aspect has been neutralised)? Also 1 Kgs 1:14?



snip
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
> _______________________________________________


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Regards,
David Kummerow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page