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: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <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 19:16:46 -0000

Dear Harold,

Clusters of YIQTOLs with past reference are very rare; one other occurrence is the building of the tabrnacle. When such a thing occurs, there is some reason for it, and my suggestion was that there is a convention in such situations to use YIQTOLs. The point I tried to make was that linguistic conventions does not affect or pinpoint the meaning of a verb form.

BTW, how do you know that YIQTOLs with past reference are progressive, while WAYYIQTOLs with past reference are not progressive? Because the grammars say so? In that case, how do the grammarians know? Do Waltke and O´Connor prove their point, or do they just say so? Please look at the examples below and tell me why the YIQTOLs should be taken as progressive why and the WAYYIQTOLs should not.

Genesis 37:7 One YIQTOL followed by one WAYYIQTOL

Exodus 1:12 Three YIQTOLs and one WAYYIQTOL

Deuteronomy 2:12 One YIQTOL and two WAYYIQTOLs

Deuteronomy 32:12 One YIQTOL followed by one WAYYIQTOL

Please also consider Nehemiah 3:13-15. Are the two YIQTOLs and three WEYIQTOLs in these verses progressive while the WAYYIQTOL in v.13 with of the same root as one of the WEYIQTOLs in v. 15 is not progressive?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew


Rolf Furuli wrote:

I object strongly to the claim that linguistic convention and the
intrinsic meaning of a verb form are interchangeable. For example, in 50
verses in Ezekiel chapters 1and 10 we find a description of a heavenly
throne. Of the verbs with past reference I count 28 YIQTOLs, 2 QATALs, 7
participles, two infinitive absolutes, and 15 WAYYIQTOLs. In addition, there
are 3 QATALs with pre-past meaning. Why do we have all these YIQTOLs with
past reference in this scenario? 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.
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.

HH: I just looked at Ezekiel 10, and there is nothing in the use of the
verbs that does not seem to fit into well-known categories of usage. The
YIQTOLS give every evidence of being progressive imperfectives
(Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax #31.3b). They describe ongoing
action that the prophet observes.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

_______________________________________________






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page