Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] no to aspect

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] no to aspect
  • Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:53:50 +0100

Dear Randall,

You are correct when you say that most Semitists view WAYYIQTOL as perfective. But I would ask two questions on the basis of the masoretic rules of pointing and vocalization: Could the gemination of the YOD in the prefix and the position of the stress corroborate the view that the WAY(Y)-prefix only is a conjunction that have a conjunctive force, and not is a semantic marker making WAYYIQTOL different from YIQTOL? Is there anything in the morphology of the WAYYIQTOL that would contradict the view that the prefix only is a conjunction?


I also have some questions regarding the versions. You qualify your claim about them by using the words "quite clear" and "taken as a whole."

THE LXX:

It is true that the LXX often, but not always, uses an aorist when the Hebrew text has a WAYYIQTOL. Most WAYYIQTOLs occur in narrative contexts, and narrative has per definition past reference. What are the alternative ways of expressing past reference in koine Greek? Pluperfect is pre-past and cannot be used; perfect often portray actions completed at speech time; imperfect could have been a candidate, but its use is much more restricted than the use of YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL. Therefore, that the LXX translators often used the aorist to translate WAYYIQTOL. does not prove or indicate that WAYYIQTOL is a perfective verb. Has the Greek aorist exactly the same meaning as the WAYYIQTOL? Or, was the aorist the best choice the translators had at their disposal, even though its meaning was different from the meaning of WAYYIQTOL? How can we know the answers?


THE SYRIAC text:

This translation was made at a time when Mishnaic Hebrew had replaced Classical Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew has a tense system, or at least has come along way in the grammaticalization of a tense system. Is the verbal system of Syraic more like Classical Hebrew or more like Mishnaic Hebrew? If it is more like Mishnaic Hebrew, it has a tense system. Because narrative verbs, which mostly are WAYYIQTOLs, tend to have past reference, how can the Syriac tense system be used to show that WAYYIQTOL is perfective? Can the Syriac text show more than that the WAYYIQTOLs in most cases have past reference?

THE TARGUMIM:

Most, or all, the Aramaic Targums were written at a time when Mishnaic Hebrew was in its formation stages, or was already formed. In the Aramaic part of the book of Daniel, I found that 216 QATALs, 103 participles, 29 QATALs + participles, and 34 YIQTOLs have past reference. (Of particular interest are the YIQTOLs with past reference.) The verbal system of the Targums is different from the verbal system of Daniel. Therefore, the same questions can be asked regarding the Targums as in the case of the Syriac text. How can the verbs of the Targums tell us whether the WAYYIQTOL has a perfective meaning?

MT:

The morphology of the WAYYIQTOL is different from the morphology of YIQTOL. But how can we know there is a semantic difference? My first questions above illuminate the issue.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli.



>Genesis 1:3 "and there was light (light came into existence)" yiqtol.

wyhy is not a yiqtol. That would have been (w) yhyh

The west-Semitic languages show a distinction
between two/three morphologies of prefix verbs. The MT consonants
are not 100% reliable on this, but close enough to show that the
system recorded by the MT existed.


Rolf Furuli

I would not be surprised if a graduate student were to do the same
statistical analysis as you did for your dissertation, but instead of
focusing on tense as you did, focus on aspect, that he would find that
aspect is not grammaticalized just as tense is not grammaticalized.

Yes. You would be correct. The same thing happens in Greek.
The Porter crowd points to the 'historical present' as an
unnecessary problem, without bothering to notice that 'historical
presents' tend to be in opening settings with strings of events
that quite often have one completed event after another, counter
their theory.

Another problem is that 'aspect' is ultimately subjective, it is
the writer's presentations of a situation, so people can twist
things into all sorts of things.

Most Semitists view the wayyiqtol structure as a perfective,
among other things, and not as an imperfective. They are correct, in
my view, as far as they go. The LXX, targumim, Syriac, and MT are
quite clear on this when taken as a whole. But someone like
Barnes in '65 or R. Young in the 19th century can claim to
read everything as 'vivid present'. They can. But it wasn't
Hebrew, they were just talking to themselves.


--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
_______________________________________________
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