Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Joseph Justiss <jljustiss AT msn.com>]

Randall

 

I think you are absolutely right, and your contention seems to be exactly the 
same as that of Alviero Niccacci when he maintains that the simple nominal 
clause and the participial clause are used to represent the temporal axis of 
the present in direct speech. He has recently argued that this is also the 
case in poetry in a recent chapter. In this same chapter (to be found in 
Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting) he challenges the notion 
that qatal or yiqtol ever refer to the present. He argues that qatal and 
yiqtol can both refer to the past, but when they do "they signal a shift from 
main-line, punctual information (qatal) to secondary-line, 
repeated/habitual/explanatory/descriptive information (yiqtol)". I think 
every serious Hebraist (including those on this list) needs to come to terms 
with his arguments and his unique starting point for the analysis of biblical 
Hebrew based on the linguistic model of Harald Weinrich even if he winds up 
disagreeing.  If one analyses all 80,000 occurrences of the verb in Hebrew, 
but does it with reference to the sentence level only, or without making 
distinctions in linguistic attitude (namely narrative vs. comment) then one's 
beginning methodological foundation may be, I stress "may be" flawed and 
inadequate. 

 

Rolf

 

I don't know if your analysis proceeded this way, but if it did, perhaps it 
would be appropriate to consider if this is the best way to procede with an 
analysis of BH syntax in light of the arguments of the Niccaccis and others 
who point out the inadequacies of such an approach.

 

Joseph Justiss

_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web.  Try  Bing™ now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try
 bing_1x1