Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Hey thanks for the reply, it has always been my understanding that hayah did 
correspond to the 'b verb' in english.  Like for instance Waltke & O'Conner 
says on pg 72.

In a verbless (or nominal) clause there is no verbal marker of predication.  
Hebrwe, like many other languages, including Latin and Classical Greek, may 
predicate an adjective or noun directly, without a copula (i.e some form of 
hayah, which corresponds to English 'to be').  

So that is how I have always seen it, not to be say this is a trump card or 
anything but just my understanding of it and where it came from.  And with 
regards to Gen 2:25 when you said "they came into a state of being naked."  
Were'nt they already naked?   It does not seems to me that they were becoming 
nake but already naked.  Another example I'd like to get your opinion on is 2 
Chr 20:25.

vayih:yw yamiym $:lo$h boz:ziym , it looks to me that the verb is functioning 
more like a past progressive 'were plundering.'  What are your thoughts?

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> 

> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> Not to answer for Peter, but to support him: 
> 
> I think clauses constructed with the verbal root HYH are not equivalent 
> to noun sentences (a.k.a. verbless clause). In other words, I do not 
> think of HYH as a copula. Rather it means refers essentially to a 
> happening. 
> 
> On the other hand, we can't force a particular wooden translation to 
> work in every case of HYH. Sometimes HYH can even refer to someone 
> "coming along" as in movement to a place. 
> 
> Genesis 2:25 in particular would be something like this: "They came 
> into being naked." 
> 
> Hoping to help. 
> 
> Shalom, 
> Bryan 
> 
> kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> > Hello Peter, 
> > 
> > I am curious about your statement about WAYIH:YW = become as opposed to 
> 'were.' What do you think is the difference btw Judges 16:30 and Genesis 
> 2:25? 
> > 
> > WAYIH:YW $N"HEM `RWMMIYM.... would you translate this as "They became 
> naked.." or am I misreading your point? Thanks 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Kelton Graham 
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > From: Peter Kirk 
> > 
> >> On 03/10/2006 18:08, Chris and Nel wrote: 
> >>> ... I am so used to 
> >>> reading sentences without "to be " in them that I still can not fathom 
> >>> its 
> >>> purpose here, considering that without it I actually arrived at the 
> >>> correct 
> >>> translation without looking at the English. 
> >>> 
> >>> Now can someone be kind enough pleeeease..... to relieve me of my 
> >>> making a 
> >>> fool of 
> >>> myself on this board? 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> The distinction may be that sentences in which "to be" is omitted are 
> >> usually (always?) stative, indicating a continuing state, like English 
> >> "be", whereas those starting with WAYHIY, and here with its plural form 
> >> WAYIHYUW, indicate actions, like English "became". Thus a literal 
> >> translation would be "And the dead... became more than the dead...". The 
> >> meaning is of course "More people died... than...", an action. A 
> >> translation like Kelton's "Those who were dead ... *were* many, more 
> >> than..." is misleading because it suggests a state, a count of bodies 
> >> already dead. But in fact we have an action here, a large number of 
> >> people dying. (Dare I suggest a prototype of today's suicide bombers, 
> >> except here we have an Israelite killing Gentiles in Gaza?) 
> >> 
> 
> -- 
> B. M. Rocine 
> Living Word Church 
> 6101 Court St. Rd. 
> Syracuse, NY 13026 
> (W): 315.437.6744 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Thu Oct  5 10:21:27 2006
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net (rwcrmhc15.comcast.net [204.127.192.85])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA024C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  5 Oct 2006 10:21:26 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from rmailcenter20.comcast.net ([204.127.197.130])
        by comcast.net (rwcrmhc15) with SMTP
        id <20061005142126m1500lhsm0e>; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:21:26 +0000
Received: from [69.246.10.143] by rmailcenter20.comcast.net;
        Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:21:25 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>,
        B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:21:25 +0000
Message-Id: 
<100520061421.21087.452514E4000C444C0000525F2206999735C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: [b-hebrew] misquote
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:21:27 -0000

whoops misquoted you.  You said "They came into being naked." But still the 
same question, were'nt they already naked?


--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net 

> Hey thanks for the reply, it has always been my understanding that hayah 
> did 
> correspond to the 'b verb' in english. Like for instance Waltke & O'Conner 
> says 
> on pg 72. 
> 
> In a verbless (or nominal) clause there is no verbal marker of predication. 
> Hebrwe, like many other languages, including Latin and Classical Greek, may 
> predicate an adjective or noun directly, without a copula (i.e some form of 
> hayah, which corresponds to English 'to be'). 
> 
> So that is how I have always seen it, not to be say this is a trump card or 
> anything but just my understanding of it and where it came from. And with 
> regards to Gen 2:25 when you said "they came into a state of being naked." 
> Were'nt they already naked? It does not seems to me that they were becoming 
> nake but already naked. Another example I'd like to get your opinion on is 
> 2 
> Chr 20:25. 
> 
> vayih:yw yamiym $:lo$h boz:ziym , it looks to me that the verb is 
> functioning 
> more like a past progressive 'were plundering.' What are your thoughts? 
> 
> -- 
> Kelton Graham 
> KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "B. M. Rocine" 
> 
> > Dear Kelton, 
> > 
> > Not to answer for Peter, but to support him: 
> > 
> > I think clauses constructed with the verbal root HYH are not equivalent 
> > to noun sentences (a.k.a. verbless clause). In other words, I do not 
> > think of HYH as a copula. Rather it means refers essentially to a 
> > happening. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, we can't force a particular wooden translation to 
> > work in every case of HYH. Sometimes HYH can even refer to someone 
> > "coming along" as in movement to a place. 
> > 
> > Genesis 2:25 in particular would be something like this: "They came 
> > into being naked." 
> > 
> > Hoping to help. 
> > 
> > Shalom, 
> > Bryan 
> > 
> > kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> > > Hello Peter, 
> > > 
> > > I am curious about your statement about WAYIH:YW = become as opposed to 
> > 'were.' What do you think is the difference btw Judges 16:30 and Genesis 
> > 2:25? 
> > > 
> > > WAYIH:YW $N"HEM `RWMMIYM.... would you translate this as "They became 
> > naked.." or am I misreading your point? Thanks 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Kelton Graham 
> > > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> > > 
> > > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > > From: Peter Kirk 
> > > 
> > >> On 03/10/2006 18:08, Chris and Nel wrote: 
> > >>> ... I am so used to 
> > >>> reading sentences without "to be " in them that I still can not 
> > >>> fathom its 
> > >>> purpose here, considering that without it I actually arrived at the 
> correct 
> > >>> translation without looking at the English. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> Now can someone be kind enough pleeeease..... to relieve me of my 
> > >>> making a 
> > >>> fool of 
> > >>> myself on this board? 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> The distinction may be that sentences in which "to be" is omitted are 
> > >> usually (always?) stative, indicating a continuing state, like English 
> > >> "be", whereas those starting with WAYHIY, and here with its plural 
> > >> form 
> > >> WAYIHYUW, indicate actions, like English "became". Thus a literal 
> > >> translation would be "And the dead... became more than the dead...". 
> > >> The 
> > >> meaning is of course "More people died... than...", an action. A 
> > >> translation like Kelton's "Those who were dead ... *were* many, more 
> > >> than..." is misleading because it suggests a state, a count of bodies 
> > >> already dead. But in fact we have an action here, a large number of 
> > >> people dying. (Dare I suggest a prototype of today's suicide bombers, 
> > >> except here we have an Israelite killing Gentiles in Gaza?) 
> > >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > B. M. Rocine 
> > Living Word Church 
> > 6101 Court St. Rd. 
> > Syracuse, NY 13026 
> > (W): 315.437.6744 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > 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 
>From furuli AT online.no  Thu Oct  5 11:10:11 2006
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail45.e.nsc.no (mail45.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.45])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8837E4C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  5 Oct 2006 11:10:11 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from ttttt (ti200710a080-6887.bb.online.no [85.164.154.231])
        by mail45.nsc.no (8.13.8/8.13.5) with SMTP id k95FA7CJ001448
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:10:09 +0200 
(CEST)
Message-ID: <004701c6e890$5aabc8e0$d4cefea9@ttttt>
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:10:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; Ashkenazi pronunciation;
        was: Translating
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:10:11 -0000

Dear Rivka,

See my comments below,
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: YODAN=20
  To: 'Rolf Furuli' ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org=20
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:52 PM
  Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan


  Shalom Rolf,

  =20

  I looked at the section you mentioned and saw a few WEYIQTOLs but =
didn't find a WAYYIQTOL;  I must have missed it.  Can you give a =
chapter/verse please?



  RF:

  In the mentioned book  vol II, p. 23, after the refrence Daniel =
11:15-17,  Kahle says: "Die Hs. hat die folgenen Imperfecta als =
Imperfecta consecutiva aufgefasst und waw mit a vokalisiert."

  =20

  In any event, are you saying that a word like vaYAkom (with kamatz =
katan as the last vowel) is a form of yaKOM (with holam as the last =
syllable) or yaKUM (with kubutz or shuruk as the last syllable) to which =
VAV was added?  If so, I agree and I believe this is the accepted =
explanation of these forms.  This is also an example of a HOLAM turning =
into Kamatz Katan or, better yet, an earlier SHURUK or KUBUTZ that later =
(sometimes) into Holam (in imperfect verbs) or into kamatz katan (when =
the VAV was added and the accentuation changed).  Do you agree with =
this?

  RF:

  My approach to the vowel points of the Masoretes is basically phonemic =
(semantic distinction by the use of vowels) and not so much phonetic =
(descriptive use of vowel). Of course I cannot avoid starting with a =
phonetic analysis, but I think it is difficult to be certain as to which =
vowels turned into which vowels. If I understand your words above =
correctly, I have no objection to them.

  =20

  I'm interested in the point about 2 and 4 conjunctions.  Can you =
please elaborate on this?



   RF:

  When we look at the MT from a morphological standpoint (vowel points =
included) we find five different groups of verbs (YIQTOLs, WEYIQTOLs, =
WAYYIQTOLs, QATALs, and WEQATALs). At present this is believed to =
represent four different conjugations (A Niccacci has five, since he =
views WEYIQTOLs as an independent semantic unit), since the WEYIQTOLs =
are viewed as YIQTOLs with a prefixed conjugation and WEQATALs with past =
reference (357 examples) are believed to be QATALs with a prefixed =
conjunction (Nicacci again is consistent and view all WEQATALs as one =
group).

  The important question, which seldom have been scrutinized, is: The =
morphological distinction, is it semantic (different semantic groups are =
distinguished) or is it pragmatic (basically represening function, i.e. =
past, present, and future reference /not "tense," which would be a =
semantic term/ and modality? The answer stands and falls with the view =
of WAYYIQTOL. As a matter of fact, the WAYYIQTOL did not exist before =
the Masoretes! By that I mean that it is impossible to distinguish =
between WEYIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs in the DSS since many WEYIQTOLs in the =
MT are apocopated just as are many WAYYIQTOLs. In the transcriptions of =
Origen=B4s Hexapla the WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs are transcribed =
similarly (no gemination and the prefix transcribed as OU). The =
Masoretes obviously distingusihed between YIQTOLs/WEYIQTOLs on the one =
hand and WAYYIQTOLs on the other. But again, was this in their mind a =
semantic or a pragmatic distinction? And, if there is no trace of this =
distinction before them, on which basis did they make the distinction?

  The Masoretes introduced their pointing (vowels and accents) on the =
basis of the recitation they heard in the synagogue, and they would not =
dream of adding or subtractiong a single dot to the text. They were not =
grammarians and did not understand much grammar at all, so they would =
not make sweeping grammatical changes in the text. In order to be short, =
I will say that a basic problem for the Masoretes may have been to =
distinguish between shewa, whose default pronunciation was an "a"-sound, =
and patah, whose default pronunciation was an "a"-sound as well. =
Therefore, the least likely vowels to use to make a *semantic* =
distinction would be shewa versus patah. Whether these two vowels were =
pronounced differently in the synagogue we do not know, but is is likely =
that the stress in the recitation of narrative texts was different =
compared with texts with future and modal reference. Thus, the narrative =
form with prefixed vaw would have a retracted stress, and future and =
modal forms would not. In this way the distinction was made. Narrative =
YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW had penultimate stress (and an "a"-vowel), and =
applying their phonetical rules the result would be WAYYIQTOL forms. =
Non-narrative YIWTOLs with prefixed WAW had normal stress (and an =
"a"-vowel) and applying their phonetical rules the result would be =
WEYIQTOL forms. (An interesting study can be made of the vacillation in =
pointing and stress by WEYIQTOLs/WAYYIQTOLs in non-narrative texts.)

  The Masoretes would not dream of adding a single dot to the text, but =
they had to choose different vowels. Thus, the five groups that we see =
in their text were made on functional and phonetic grounds. However, =
grammarians from the Middle Ages who did not distinguish between =
semantic and pragmatic factors interpreted the pragmatic distinction =
made by the Masorets as a semantic distinction, and the four component =
model with WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL, WEQATAL, and QATAL was born. It is an =
exception that modern grammarians working with Semitic languages =
distingusih between semantic and pragmatic questions, so the 1000 year =
old four-component model still stands. I have analysed all the 70.000 =
finite and infinite verbs of classival Hebrew and written a dissertation =
about these, and my conclusion is that YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL =
represent the imperfective aspect and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the =
perfective aspect. Perfectivity and imperfectivity is defined on the =
basis of reference time and event time and the definitions are different =
from the ordinary definitions.



  Best regards,



  Rolf Furuli

  University of OSLO





  =20