Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

Now we come to the leaning tower of Pisa. But before we can see how 
straight it is, we need  some discussion. While I would not use the 
discourse analysis of Niccacci or anyone else to find the *meaning* 
of  Hebrew verbs, discourse analysis has its legitimate place in the 
study of any language. By the help of discourse principles we can 
find linguistic conventions and particular discourse patterns.

In connection with our discussion, we may note that the use of 
personal pronouns is different in connection with participles 
compared with finite verbs. When a participle functions similarly to 
a finite verb it is often preceded by a pronoun. But  together with a 
YIQTOL, a WAYYIQTOL, or a QATAL we rarely find a personal pronoun. 
And when we find one, our first thought is that it stresses the 
person in some way.
On this basis, your B-examples (hu yivne [davar]) and your C-examples 
(hu bana [davar]) in your first post in this thread are excluded 
because of discourse reasons, and not because of temporal reasons.
We also know that word order can be important because of the 
discourse factors theme and rheme, or because of modality 
considerations. The first verb R)H in your example "*er'e et ha-`ets 
sham  *"I see the tree there"" may have been taken as jussive because 
of its clause-initial place. So, if an author wrote in the 
indicative, he would hardly have started with a YIQTOL (though there 
are some clause-initial YIQTOLs in indicative clauses).

My main point in the previous paragraph is that we must take the 
discourse constraints into consideration. We cannot just point to 
examples of pronouns and participles with present reference in direct 
speech, and argue that there are few if any YIQTOLS and QATALs with 
present reference in direct speech. And therefore, the participle is 
THE present form in BH. Moreover, there can be other reasons for the 
use of a particular form (e.g., a participle) in a particular 
context, and situations which are different may be scarce.

But what kind of examples do we have from Pisa? All quotes are from NIV


YIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE

DEUT 20:20:

However, you may cut down trees that you know (YIQTOL)

A present state (to know) is expressed by YIQTOL.

2 Samuel 18:27:
The watchman said (WAYYIQTOL), "It seems to me (PERS. PRON+PART) that 
the first one runs (NOUN) like Ahimaaz son of Zadok."	"He's a good 
man (NOMINAL CLAUSE.)," the king said (WAYYIQTOL). "He comes (YIQTOL) 
with good news."

A present action (to come) is expressed by YIQTOL.




WAYYIQTOL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE

1 KINGS 19:10:
He replied (WAYYIQTOL), "I have been very zealous (QATAL+ INF. ABS) 
for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected (QATAL) your 
covenant, broken down (QATAL) your altars, and put your prophets to 
death (QATAL) with the sword. I am the only one left (WAYYIQTOL+ 
PERS. PRON), and now they are trying to kill (WAYYIQTOL) me too."

In this verse we find two WAYYIQTOLs with present reference, and the 
first is connected with a personal pronoun.

1 Kings 8:20:
"The LORD has kept (WAYYIQTOL) the promise he made (QATAL): I have 
succeeded (WAYYIQTOL) David my father and now I sit (WAYYIQTOL) on 
the throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised (QATAL), and I have 
built (WAYYIQTOL) the temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of 
Israel.

In this verse we find three WAYYIQTOLs   with a present completed 
force, and one is used with present reference ("I sit")



QATAL WITH PRESENT REFRENCE

1 SAMUEL 8:5:
They said  (WAYYIQTOL) to him, "You are old (QATAL), and your sons do 
not walk (QATAL) in your ways;

In this verse we have two QATALs with present reference. The second 
do not fit your exceptions, because it is negated. But this is rather 
artificial; why should not a negative statement with present 
reference be representative of present reference?

1 Kings 17:24:
Then the woman said (WAYYIQTOL) to Elijah, "Now I know (QATAL) that 
you are a man of God

The QATAL  is connected with the adverb "now," so the reference must 
be present.



WEQATAL WITH PRESENT REFERENCE

Genesis 9:9, 11:
(9) I now establish (PARTICIPLE + PERS. PRON) my covenant with you
(11) I establish (WEQATAL) my covenant with you


Here we have exactly the same present situation in both instances. In 
the first case it is expressed by a personal pronoun and participle, 
and in the second case it is expressed by a WEQATAL. This shows that 
there are several ways  for the expression of present reference in 
direct speech.

In order to be sensitive to gravity, it is important, not only to 
avoid saying that the leaning tower of Pisa is standing straight, but 
also avoid saying that the tower is leaning in the opposite direction 
than really is the case. This would be the case if one tries to 
explain away examples that contradict particular viewpoints.

I do not dispute your claim that a normal way of expressing present 
reference in direct speech is by the use of a personal pronoun and a 
participle. But I say that there also are other ways, as shown above; 
and the examples could be multiplied.  However, to find the most 
common way to express direct speech tells us very little regarding 
which verb forms in BH that can be used with present reference. This 
is so because the situations from which examples can be taken are so 
restricted. In order to find how present reference is expressed in 
BH, we must consider all such situations. this is corroborated from 
the examples Waltke/O'Connor give regarding YIQTOL and present 
reference.

BTW. In this thread no one has claimed that WAYYIQTOL  is a present 
tense. The closest we come to such an idea is that I said that 
	WAYIQTOL is nothing but a YIQTOL with a prefixed conjunction. 
I never use the word "present tense" to describe BH or English verbs, 
because in these cases I view the expression as a misnomer.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> After another set of six comments, it is probably useful to re-orient
> back to the original issue. None of the comments proposed
> a YIQTOL example in an actual, positive, real, present reference,
> (yes, given a strict set of parameters to insure that we are
> comparing a few apples to a few apples)
> though one comment assured that such was 'accurate', and another
> seemed to imply that the vayyiqtol was effictively a present tense. If the
> latter, then one wonders what distinguishes vayyiqtol +Subject from
> ve-Subject+qotel, or even ve-qotel Subject? But that would need to
> be a different thread.
>
> Let's keep looking for some bonafide examples
> of present yiqtol without outside contingencies. The kind that
> Hebrew profs keep giving me like:
>
> * er'e et ha-`ets sham  *"I see the tree there"
>
> Again, look at this the other way around:
> What if I had a class and was saying to a standing student
>
> * ta`amod sham vaani e`mod po
> as if to say  * "you're standing there and I'm standing here"
>
> I would have hoped that people would have jumped all over me and
> said
>  'show us some good examples for the kind of Hebrew you're teaching!'
> (they sure do that fast when they hear participles !
> "I get slandered, libeled, I hear words I never heard in the Bible")
>
> Instead, it may be that people are looking from a 'leaning tower of pisa'
> so that if I would lean with them they would say
> 'you're standing straight'.
>
> But I'm sensitive to gravity and want to stand straight.
>
> blessings
> Randall Buth
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew