Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Jeremiah 1:5

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] Jeremiah 1:5
  • Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:08:45 +0200

Dear Joe,

In connection with Hebrew verbs you should not *expect* anything. Any such expectation would be based of the grammar book one believes in. And grammar books often describe Hebrew verbs differently. I have never seen any book on Hebrew grammar or syntax making a systematic distinction between semantic and pragmatic factors, so the reader can know which intrinsic meaning a verb form has, and which meaning it has gotten from the context. Moreover, the definition of aspect, if such a definition is found, is superficial and never language-specific. So, instead of expecting something, make a study of the Hebrew text and see what you find there.

The most fundamental error in modern Hebrew grammars is that they make a semantic distinction between WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL. There are scores upon scores of passages where YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs are used with past reference (I deal with 1.027 examples of YIQTOLs with past reference in my dissertation), and where it is very likely that the reason for the choice of YIQTOL is that a substantive, or an adverb, or a particle occurs before the verb. If these words were removed, the YIQTOLs would most likely get the prefixed conjunction WAW and become WAYYQTOLs.

One example which has some bearing on Jeremiah 1:5 is Job 38:8, because both have the verb YC) with past reference. If the YIQTOL in Job 38:8 had been clause initial, it would most likely have been a WAYYIQTOL, just as the clause initial WAYYIQTOL in the beginning of the verse. A similar example from Jeremiah is 52:7.

Then to Jeremiah 1:5. The verb YCR is telic (the end is conceptually included in the action), and YC) is semelfctive or telic. When these verbs occur in a past setting, the actions are viewed as completed at reference time. This collides head on with most grammarians' view of imperfectivity. Joüon/Muraoka, II, 368, h attempts to make an explanation: "Finally there are some yiqtols with no iterative or durative aspect, and thus having the value of qatal , which would be the expected form. (NB, the word "expected"). The observation that some YIQTOLs cannot be explained as "durative past" (an expression which is a misnomer, since "durativity" is an Aktionsart term and not an aspect term) is good. But to say that they have exactly the same force or meaning as the very opposite form-QATAL, is in my view linguistic anarchy. But please note the correct observation of the grammar (II, 370, i), contrary to most others, that the adverb +RM before a YIQTOL does not influence its meaning in any way.

Active, passive, reflexive, telic, resultative, factitive, interative, habitual actions etc. can be expressed in different ways in Hebrew: by the stem, by adverbs, by aspects and Aktionsart, and by particles. For example, an interative force can result from the combination of a semelfactive or telic verb plus the imperfective aspect. One important side of the Piel stem is the resultative force (the subject leads the object through the end of an action and into a resultant state)-see the fine explanation of this by Waltke/O' Connor. But this resultative force can also be made visible in the Qal stem by the use of a semelfactive or telic verb plus the imperfective aspect. This is the way I would interpret the two YIQTOLs of Jeremiah 1:5. When a forming action is completed, the thing formed stands there. Jeremiah was formed by God, and what Jeremiah makes visible is a man existing in the state of having been formed to whom God could talk. This is similar to a king who accepts the throne, and then is in the state of reigning. We can reason in a similar way with the other YIQTOL. Jeremiah came out of his mother's womb, and what is made visible is not the movement out of the mother, but the resultant state of having been born. In this way the imperfective definition can be defended. True, the action is completed, but the resultant state is open-ended.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



I have a question about the Yiqtol verb in Jeremiah 1:5.

1. Am I correct to expect a Qatal form of Ȗ¯ instead of a Yiqtol after the temporal adverbial prepositional phrase ·Ë¯Ì in verse 5?



2. Is the sense of the verse some kind of modal use of Yiqtol: "Before I could form you in the womb I knew you."? Or are these even the right kind of questions to be asking?



Just wanted to get your thoughts.



Joe Justiss


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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