Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; was: Translating

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kamatz katan; was: Translating
  • Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:22:08 +0500

On 07/10/2006 19:04, Rolf Furuli wrote:

... A starting approach to find which Hebrew verbs are used with past and future reference is to read about the construction of the temple. First we read what will be done, and then we read that it has been done. The principal verbs used in these accounts are YIQTOLs for the future and QATALs for the past. ...

Yes, indeed, if you mean the construction of the Tabernacle in the latter part of Exodus. But you should also note that the secondary or continuation verbs are WEQATAL and WAYYIQTOL respectively, a position most simply explained by the "waw conversive" type of theory.

... Theis is a situation that is very similar to Hebrew narratives with WAYYIQTOLs and QATALs. ...

Not really. In Hebrew parallel to the Ugaritic QATAL and WAYYIQTOL are used with past reference and YIQTOL and WEQATAL are used with future reference, with the distinctions between past and future made consistently. In these Hebrew texts there is not a trace of the situation found in Ugaritic in which the same forms are used for past and future. WAYYIQTOL is in fact never used in Hebrew with true future reference, although sometimes maybe as some kind of "past in the future" or "future perfect" relative tense. (OK, maybe you will find me occasional examples, but a few examples may result from mispointing of WEYIQTOL and other scribal errors, and in many cases the reference time is debatable.)

... Please note that the languages are very close. In my list of words from Kirta, between 70% and 80% of the Ugaritic words have Hebrew cognates.

That's not really all that close. This degree of lexical correspondence doesn't imply much closeness in other ways. In fact I guess that at least 70% of English words, chosen at random from a dictionary, have Latin cognates which come direct or through Romance languages, rather than from proto-Indo-European. That does not imply that English is "very close" to Latin in terms of syntax and morphology.


--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page