Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew

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] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:49:56 +0000

On 20/03/2007 17:56, Rolf Furuli wrote:

... Interestingly, when I translated the
Ethiopic
Enoch into Norwegian some years ago, I found the same excess of imperfective
forms, with and without prefixed WAW in the heavenly visions in that book. ...

Could this be because the translator from Hebrew to Ethiopic
concordantly translated Hebrew WAYYIQTOL into its Ethiopic formal
equivalent, without appreciating the mismatch between the languages.
After all, that is what the New World translators into English did, so
it is quite possible that the Ethiopic translators did something similar.


... Logically, there is some linguistic convention behind this, but this
convention does not tell us anything about the intrinsic meaning of the
YIQTOLs or the Ethiopic prefix-forms. Similarly in Phoenician, in several
inscriptions the infinitive absolute ...

You mean, the form which is cognate to the Hebrew infinitive absolute
but which in Phoenician, a different language, is quite possibly a past
tense.

... is used as the narrative form. This
tells us about the linguistic convention in connection with these
inscriptions, but nothing about the intrinsic meaning of the infinitive
absolute. In the Ugaritic saga of Kirta (Keret) prefixed forms are used to
tell what will happen, and later exactly the same clauses with exactly the
same prefix forms are used to tell what happened. This is a linguistic
convention which tells us nothing about the meaning of the prefix form.

And in Hebrew, in Exodus, different forms are used to tell what will
happen and to tell what happened, and you claim that is also linguistic
convention. So, in an ancient language, what evidence would you accept
as demonstrating that a formal difference is a semantic one? Unless your
methodology allows for the possibility than a distinction can be proved
to be semantic, your claims to demonstrate that a difference is not
semantic are empty.

Then to the WAYYIQTOL issue: The WAY+YIQTOL is extensively used as a
narrative verb. This means that a set of consequtive actions are portrayed,
each action following the other. It is generally accepted that one action is
completed before the next has started. No one would deny that this use of
WAYYIQTOL is a lingusitic convention, ...

Rolf, I had decided not to reply to this, but changed my mind when I
read the above sentence (and went back to reply to some earlier points).
As several times before, you want to assert something which is in fact highly debatable, or as in this case only makes sense within the inadequate linguistic model which you insist on. In the hope of covering up the fact that this is a logical non sequitur, you prefix the statement with "No one would deny that" or something similar. Well, you can't embarrass me into silence in this way, as yet again I am going to deny this, or at least deny that it has been adequately demonstrated. I would consider that sequential action in the past is the normal or prototypical semantic meaning of WAYYIQTOL, and the rare cases where it is not sequential or not past, if correctly understood as such, are atypical examples, of which any linguist not blinkered by a model of uncancellability would expect to see several.

... but its past reference does not tell
us whether the WAYYIQTOL form is an independent preterit conjugation, an
independent perfective conjugation, or is an imperfective YIQTOL with
prefixed WAW. We cannot assume an answer, but we should demonstrate what is
the case. I can formulate my requirement in other words: I think that it was
natural for the old Hebrews to use imperfective prefix forms as their
narrative verbs, and they applied a WAW as a tool to move the narrative
forwards. This was a linguistic convention. In order to show that WAYYIQTOL
is a past tense, you cannot just assume that my possibility is wrong, you
must demonstrate it.

Well, Rolf, we know that you "think" that this was a linguistic
convention. But in order to show that it was, you cannot just assume
that there is no semantic difference, you must demonstrate it. It seems
to me that within your model you have no way of deciding whether a
distinction is semantic or linguistic convention, and you make an
arbitrary choice (or one based on your alleged presuppositions
concerning the New World translation) to "think" that they are
linguistic convention. But if you have no way of deciding this matter,
it seems to me that the distinction in your model between semantic and
linguistic convention distinctions is an empty one, and so your model
cannot be a useful one at least for describing dead languages.

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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page