Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Phil Sumpter" <philsumpter AT hotmail.com>]

What is the mood (or mode) of the the verbs in Ps 24:3 and 7/8?

In v. 3 I would have thought indicative rather than subjunctive, as the 
psalmist is not interested in theoretical possibilities but in actual facts. 
He is interested in "who is allowed to" and not "who might be allowed to." Or 
is there an implicit wish here, transforming the indicative to a subjunctive?

In v. 7 we have two imperatives and then a jussive. Is the jussive indicative 
or subjunctive? I associate jussives with the expression of wishes, and thus 
a subjunctive mood. It would seem, however, that the jussive here (following 
an imperative verb sequence) has the function of expressing either the 
purpose or the consequence of the previous imperatives. In that case it would 
seem to be indicative.

In short, there seems to be ambiguity in the Psalm concerning its modality, 
which is ironic given its dramatic tenor. Is there a note of personal 
yearning present, or are these just didactic/liturgical statements meant to 
communicate a theological point? Is the poverty of the conjugation system a 
hindrance to communication, or is the ambiguity intentional? 

Phil Sumpter

http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/
>From farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 20:24:04 2009
Return-Path: <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id EB8254C013; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from blu0-omc3-s23.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s23.blu0.hotmail.com
        [65.55.116.98])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DD54C012
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:23:53 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP86 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s23.blu0.hotmail.com
        with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
        Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:23:52 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [124.148.107.151]
X-Originating-Email: [farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP86CAB973408EDE7E1FB1CBC1360 AT phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([124.148.107.151]) by
        BLU0-SMTP86.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with
        Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:23:51 -0700
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:23:49 +1000
From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <mailman.0.1245691210.2095.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1245691210.2095.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2009 00:23:52.0419 (UTC)
        FILETIME=[E2E7CB30:01C9F398]
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:24:04 -0000


Hi Rolf,

See below:

>
>
> Dear David,
>
> This was just a sweeping statement of yours without any documentation.
>  From our previous discussions it appears that you and I  understand
> fundamental linguistic concepts completely different and live in two
> different linguistic worlds. So I see no reason for a discussion of
> Hebrew verbs between you and me.

The documentation is on this very list. Here's an but one example:

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032068.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032070.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-April/032069.html


>
> You have also in other forums made sweeping statements, as in your
> review of my doctoral dissertation in "Journal of Asia Adventist
> Seminary".  About 18 months ago, Yitzhak Sapir raised some questions
> about the quality of my dissertation and asked if there were any peer
> reviews. Questions regarding your review should therefore be relevant
> for b-hebrew, both because of this and because of your claim in your
> last E-mail that the conclusions of my dissertation regarding YIQTOL and
> WAYYIQTOL have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on this list.
>
> I will only mention one  point that may illuminate the claim you made in
> your last E-mail.  The most important error of your review is that you
> completely have misunderstood the basic parameters I use in my analysis
> of Hebrew verbs, namely event time, reference time, and deictic center.
> The definition of my "reference time" that you present is completely
> wrong, and is not found in the dissertation. And the same is true with
> your presentation of my "deictic center," where you misquote the
> dissertation, because you have not understood that my words refer to
> the  abstract term "deictic" and not to the parameter "deictic center".
> Therefore, many of your arguments against my conclusions actually hit a
> straw man; you cannot effectively argue against something that you have
> not understood!

Note that I do not have a problem with this methodology per se. It is
only the rigid application of it which I have a problem with, ie the
underlying assumption regarding the linguistic existence of
"uncancellable meaning".

I am sorry that I misrepresented you. What I found difficult in writing
that paragraph was that you failed to give a plain definition of the
concepts you were running with. I still find it intriguing that others
who have used these very same linguistic concepts as yourself have
produced vastly different results, eg Cook an aspectual one and Rogland
and Goldfajn a tense one.

But note too that your own sweeping statement that "many of [my]
arguments against [your] conclusions actually hit a straw man" is not
valid. The bit where I may have misrepresented you is only a very minor
part of my critique (one or two sentences at most), and all I am doing
there is presenting an overview. The substantive part of my critique is
regarding your contention on the existence of "uncancellable meaning"
and how this is linguistically untenable. Your whole thesis is built
upon this foundation and so therefore falls with it. You do not deal
with this central issue, and even in your dissertation this position is
simply assumed and never defended.

>
> At the beginning you say, "As will soon be apparent, I disagree with
> Furuli at almost every point." This is hardly a good setting for a real
> peer review, which should be a balanced, scientific discussion. Your
> words suggest that what you have written rather is a one-sided or biased
> discussion.

My words suggest that there is a basic floor to your thesis, viz. that
it has incorrectly assumed the linguistic existence of "uncancellable
meaning", which has then lead to the results of the thesis which are
questionable due to the shaky foundation.

Actually, I started out reading your work with an open mind thinking
that maybe you had put all the pieces of the BH verbal system together.
But the more I read, the more I saw that your results were directly
related to the basic premise regarding the existence of "uncancellable
meaning". It is therefore a real review which argues that this basic
assumption is linguistically untenable.

> Moreover, a peer review of a Ph.D dissertation should be
> made by a peer, by one who both have a Ph.D and is an expert in the
> field. But your lack of understanding of fundamental linguistic concepts
> and several other misunderstandings and misrepresentations lead me to
> wonder about your qualifications.

>
> On "BibleWorks User Forum" your profile  is: "Research assistant,
> teaching Biblical Hebrew, Ph.D thesis on BH pronouns". I would like to
> ask about  the background you had when you wrote the review: Which
> grades in Hebrew and Semitics did you have? Had you at that time
> defended your doctoral dissertation? Have you published any articles or
> monographs dealing with Hebrew verbs or Semitic linguistics? How long
> have you taught Hebrew on the university level?

Now isn't this a bit hoity-toity -- that only one who holds a PhD can
question the lofty and above-reproach work of a fellow PhD-holder? Come
on, the critique is as it stands. Either you can defend the basic
assumption of the thesis regarding the existence of "uncancellable
meaning" in the face of the evidence I presented against it, or you
can't. Simple as that.


>
> For the record, there are two other reviews of my dissertation that are
> diametrically different from  Kummerow's review: "Hebrew Studies" 48
> (2007) 359-62 by professor E. R Hayes, and The Society of Biblical
> Literature (http:/www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp) by professor John
> Kaltner.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>

Regards,
David Kummerow.