Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/