Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nir;

I'm confident you're well qualified to opine on this precise and
narrow issue.

I am not looking for hidden meanings or messages.

I understand that today the following simple rule applies to persons
employing the hebrew language as an everyday means of communication:

a. the yiqtol verb form instructs the future tense;

b. the qatal verb form instructs the past tense.

The only question I have: what did those two verb forms instruct in the
masoretic text?

It all seems so simple; when the patient is on the operating table, and the
surgery team has dispatched a tissue sample to pathology for examination, a
simple report is expected and inevitably produced, promptly, to wit:

a. the tissue sample is malignant;

b. the tissue sample is not malignant.

 The path lab never delivers the answer .... "maybe" to the patient opened
up; and the waiting surgery team.

Likewise, it seems that beyond all else that has and can be said about these
two verb forms, the actual usage of the forms in the masoretic text is
susceptible of a determination as to whether they instruct the past or
future tense. And if not, what is the purpose of having two forms?

regards,

fred burlingame

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. 
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> *fred,
>
> 1) first, a side issue on your use of the word "masoret". note that the
> distinction
> between YIQTOL and WEQATAL is distinguishable even  without the dots; so,
> ascribing it to
> the masoret, rather than to a much earlier text, is not necessarily the
> only hypothesis possible.
> as a non-expert, i will not enter this discussion.
>
> 2) before finding a hidden meaning in a certain grammatical form, doesnt it
> make sense, first, to see the
> pattern and logic of its appearance and recurrence in the text? namely, to
> provide rules, as simple as possible,
> which predict the occurrences of this form to a reasonable degree? this is
> what i  did in my answer, to the best
> of my lay knowledge.
>
> 3) in addition to the rules, i also gave a plausible explanation consistent
> with them, to wit,  "poetic style which
> unfavors non-repetition", with the implicit corollary that there is no
> hidden message there. in other words,
> the doctor says to the patient "you do not have a hearing problem. just go
> clean your right ear." isnt it the best
> the doctor could say, under the circumstances?
>
> as, in this case, the doctor is not an M.D., the patient is certainly
> entitled to a second opinion.
>
> regards
> nir cohen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:24:19 -0600, fred burlingame wrote*
> > 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
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
>
> *On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:24:19 -0600, fred burlingame wrote*
> > 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
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
>
>