Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The use of the Yiqtol in Isaiah 1:21

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] The use of the Yiqtol in Isaiah 1:21
  • Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:08:42 +0200

There are several different views regarding the meaning of the Classical Hebrew conjugations. The basic methodological problem that we find in grammars and textbooks, is that no attempts are made to distinguish between the semantic meaning (grammaticalized meaning) of the verb forms and conversational pragmatic implicature (meaning that is derived from the context). I am not aware of any study of Hebrew verbs apart from my own doctoral dissertation (which is based on an analysis all the 80.000 finite and infinite verbs of Classical Hebrew) where this difference is systematically pursued. The same is true regarding Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Aramaic“ no such studies do exist.

I agree that the YIQTOL in Isaiah 1:21 has past reference. But I disagree with George that the YIQTOL form indicate indefinite action and does not express one specific concrete action. For example, do not the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs with past reference in Nehemiah 3:14, 15 express concrete specific actions just as do the QATALs? I would also say that to ascribe tense to the conjugations (past tense to WAYYIQTOL and present/future tense to YIQTOL) is misleading; it fails to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics. The same is true with the claim that a YIQTOL with past reference must have a different procedural trait, i.e., being progressive, iterative, or habitual ("durative past" is a misnomer, because durativity is an Aktionsart term, and a verb in QATAL is just as durative as the same verb in YIQTOL) than a WAYYYIQTOL. Joüon/Muraoka (113 h) lists several YIQTOLs with past reference having no durative (sic) or iterative force. And there are many, many more such verbs.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


In addition to Karl's response, the context is helped along by the first clause of the verse, which talks about what the steadfast citadel has become. A change has evidently occurred, so it makes sense that what is on view is the transition from a positive status to a negative status. So the markers around the Yiqtol suggest a past reference. A Yiqtol indicates an indefinite action - that is, not one specific concrete action (that's Qatal). So, a habitual action in the past fits the criterion of an indefinite past action.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page