Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Karl:

I don't insist on any particular conjugation of hebrew verb forms.

I am simply looking for a simple answer as to the purpose of the yiqtol and
qatal verb forms.

It appears the forms do not instruct for tense or aspect.

So, the question becomes, why the presence of the two forms?

regards,

fred burlingame

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:12 AM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:
>
> >
> > …
> >
> > The task of the student, therefore, is to study different Hebrew texts,
> > find the deictic center (C) of each verb, and see how and where reference
> > time (RT) intersects event time (ET). I propose a challenge: Apply this
> to
> > Proverbs 31:10-31, and explain why so many different verb forms are used
> in
> > the same way with the same temporal reference.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> >
> > That is a good example of where C, RT and ET indicate that the qatal and
> yiqtol do not grammaticalize for time at all, neither tense nor aspect. But
> the conjugations do fit within the qatal = primary and yiqtol = secondary
> that I proposed earlier.
>
> An example of primary vs. secondary would be a long answer to the question,
> “What did you do yesterday?” where “I woke up at 5. Then I took a shower.
> Then I walked the dog. Then I ate breakfast. Then I went to the store to
> buy
> lunch. Then … Then … Then … …” with each of the ‘thens’ indicating a
> continuation, secondary, to waking up. In Biblical Hebrew, each ‘then’ is
> usually written with the wayyiqtol, and with so much of Tanakh being
> narration, as in the long answer above, it is no surprise that most
> wayyiqtols refer to past events.
>
> When one looks at Proverbs 31:10–31, one finds that the majority of verses
> are made up of a primary idea, followed by a secondary verb that indicates
> a
> completion or continuation of the primary idea. The primary idea is written
> with a qatal, the secondary a yiqtol.
>
> As long as Fred insists that the Biblical Hebrew verbs conjugate for time
> and that time is tense, he is not going to get anywhere in his
> understanding. This is an example of where the lack of terminology can
> restrict understanding. After reading Tanakh through cover to cover, I
> found
> that qatal and yiqtol don’t grammaticalize for aspect either. That is why I
> propose the ‘primary’ vs. ‘secondary’ meanings as the purpose of the
> conjugations, but as of yet, this idea is very preliminary, like the alpha
> release of new software, therefore may need much refining to become
> completely understood.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>  _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>