Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryant,

No, all the prefix forms are imperfective in all genres, and all the 
suffix forms are perfective in all genres.


Some persons believe that the meaning of the verb forms in Akkadian 
and Hebrew are different in prose and in poetry.  One reason for such 
claims is that there are so many examples of verbs that violate the 
traditional understanding of the verbal systems.  But such claims are 
really strange, because we do not see this in the modern languages 
that we know. An English perfect and  preterit  have exactly the same 
meaning in poetry as in prose. True, in poetic texts the author 
sometimes uses a verb in a special way to create a certain affect. 
But the meaning of the form is still the same.

Some say that YIQTOLs in old Psalms represent past tense, but the 
meaning of YIQTOL changed in younger texts. This is a more promising 
approach, because we know that that the meaning of forms may change 
through time. However, the argument is circular, because there is no 
certain way to date a Psalm or another text on linguistic grounds. 
When a Psalm has some YIQTOLs with past reference, the Psalm is old, 
and therefore the YIQTOLs of old Psalms are preterits, is the 
circular argument.

An argument used bolster the view of old preterit YIQTOLs, is that is 
that the Ugaritic short form YAQTUL  is a preterit, and the Hebrew 
preterit YIQTOL evolved from this form. Interestingly, Ugaritic shows 
exactly the opposite: there are no tenses at all in Ugaritic. One of 
the Ugaritic sagas is that of Kirta (or, Keret).  In this text, we 
first learn of acts that Kirta will do in the future and situations 
that will occur in the future. The verbs, therefore, have future 
reference. Then,  the same acts and situations are described in the 
past, with exactly the same roots and verb form (with almost no 
exceptions). When so many verb forms have future reference in one 
context and past reference in another, tense is nonexistent. 
Therefore, the very foundation for the Hebrew old preterit YIQTOL is 
nonexistent.

In my doctoral work where all the finite and infinite verbs of the 
Tanakh were studied, one chapter is a diachronic study of the verb 
forms. The conclusion is that in some books that are viewed as 
younger than the others, there are small changes in the *use* of verb 
forms. But clearly, the meaning of the forms have not changed. I also 
studied all the verbs of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and even here I was 
not able to find any changes in the meaning of the prefix forms or 
suffix forms. Another chapter deals with prose versus poetry. Again 
the conclusion was that there is no difference in the meaning of any 
of the forms. BTW, I found that the claim of Kutcher and others that 
other forms tend to be used instead of WAYYIQTOLs in the younger 
books of the Tanakh, is wrong. The verbal statistics contradict this 
claim. So, no change in meaning can be found.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli




> Dear Rolf,
>
> Okay, you have described what the QTL and YQTL are in narrative, but is there
> any difference in the poetic, prophetic and apocalyptic genres?
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 6:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect
>
>
> >  Dear Isaac,
> >
> >  We may use verbs in Genesis , chapters 1 and 2, as examples.
> >
> >  Those who accept that Classical Hebrew is an aspectual language,
> >  accepts that YIQTOL is imperfective and QATAL is perfective.
> >
> >  The QATAL of 1:1 and 2:5 have past reference, and the two YIQTOLs of
> >  2:5 and the one of 2:6 have past reference as well.
> >
> >  1:1 :  BR) - perfective
> >
> >  2:5:  HYH  and ZMH - imperfective
> >  2:5 M+R - perfective
> >
> >  2:6 (LH - imperfective
> >
> >  In addition to YIQTOL, I analyze WAYYIQTOL  and WEYIQTIL as
> >  imperfective, and WEQATAL  as perfective.
> >
> >  Both the QATAL of 1:2 and the YIQTOL  of 2:6 have past reference.
> >
> >  1:2 )MR - imperfective
> >
> >  2:6 $QH - perfective
>  >
> >  The conclusion of the comments above is that Classical Hebrew has
>  > only two conjugations. All prefix forms, with and without the
> >  conjunction WAW, are imperfective, and the  suffix forms, with and
> >  without WAW, are perfective.  Tense (=grammaticalized location in
> >  time) is nonexistent,
> >
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >
> >  Rolf Furuli
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Those who view Classical Hebrew as an aspectual language
> >
> >
> >  >Can we have examples for this as they appear the Hebrew bible?
> >  >
> >  >Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >  >
> >  >On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> >  >
> >  >>perfective and imperfective aspect respectively?
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  b-hebrew mailing list
> >  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
> 3:19 PM
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew