Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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