Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nir:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

You all appear skilled and adept at this language, just like physicians or
attorneys enjoy a high level of ability in their professions.

I am reminded however, of the following scenario that occurs so frequently.

a. the patient asks her doctor: "will i get well?" ..... she hopes for a
"yes or "no" answer ... and the response in fact: "maybe."

b. likewise, the client asks his lawyer: "will I win this case?" ... he
hopes for a "yes" or "no" answer ... and the response in fact: "maybe."

c. and then fred asks here: "do the two hebrew verb forms "yiqtol" and
"qatal" instruct tense and / or aspect? fred hopes for a "yes" or "no"
answer ..... and the response in fact: "maybe."

and the patient, the client and fred are left with their thoughts: "does it
have to be this way?" .....

I can sympathize with the physician and the attorney, since the future
cannot be known with certainty. But here, we are dealing with past events,
the 1000 year old masoretic text. And yet no one appears willing to say:
"the masoretic text employs two verb forms "yiqtol" and "qatal," rather than
one verb form, for the following reason:  ...... "

It seems to me the reason for it (two, versus one, verb forms), is
susceptible to both identification and articulation in a sentence or two.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. 
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> Fred,
>
> i do not have access to the paper suggested by bryant but i agree
> completely
> with his comment. i would like to complete it from a slightly
> different point of view.
>
> 1. the poetic style of BH is such that USUALLY two actions in future
> or imperative tense will NOT be repeated at the same form. rather, they
> appear
> either as a IQTOL-WEQATAL or WEQATAL-IQTOL pair, or else as
> infinitive-future, infinitive-imperative etc.
>
> 2. this has absolutely nothing to do with the two actions stemming from
> similar roots or not.
>
> 3. there are several exceptions, for example, when a SEQUENCE OF MORE THAN
> TWO
> ACTIONS is described, in which case all of them (sometimes except the last
> one) uses the same form.
>
> you can check in the same chapter you suggested (deut 2) that most
> if not all sentenses there (dealing with future or imperative) follow this
> scheme. clearly, as paul indicated,
> in doing so one should adopt the "natural" division into sentences, which
> does
> not necessarily coincide with the one used today.
>
> nir cohen
>
>
>