Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Chavoux,

In a discussion on the basis of sound linguistic principles, we 
should distinguish between "past reference" and "past tense." The 
term "past reference" is the broader of the two; the use of the term 
implies that the action is past relative to a vantage point. But it 
does not tell whether the past reference is pragmatic or semantic. 
This means that the term does not tell us whether "past tense" is an 
intrinsic part of the verb, or whether the past reference is caused 
by different factors in the context. When we use "past tense," we 
speak of "grammaticalization of past location in time."

In the Tanakh the prefix form with the prefix WAY(Y)-  is the default 
narrative form. Most WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, but the question 
is whether this past reference is an intrinsic part of the WAYYIQTOL 
form, or whether it is cause by the context. Narrative verbs have by 
definition past reference. So we must ask whether the past reference 
of WAYYIQTOL is caused by the narrative and the prefixed WAWs, that 
portray past events in consecution. Or whether  the WAYYIQTOL IS a 
past tense.

We can only answer these questions by a study of the text of the 
Tanakh. We cannot answer these questions by looking at a number of 
WAYYIQTOLs; the only thing they tell us is that the reference is 
past, and not WHY it is past. Therefore, we need to study the whole 
text of the Tanakh, in order to find the relatively few instances 
where we can see the inner constituency of the WAYYIQTOL form.

Every language has a verbal system that is different from that of 
other languages. Because we find so few examples in the Tanakh where 
the true nature of WAYYIQTOL is found, we will get absolutely no 
information from the *translation* of Hebrew verb forms into another 
language. For example, we may look at the translation of one hundred 
WAYYIQTOLs in  in the LXX. We see that they in most cases are 
rendered by Greek aorists and have past reference. But why do the 
Greek verbs have past reference? I analyze the aorist as an 
expression of the perfective aspect, and it does not have an 
intrinsic past tense. Others may analyze it differently. So why did 
the Greek translators choose the aorist?  We cannot answer this 
question. Therefore, the choice of verb form in the LXX or in the 
Targums tell as nothing regarding the true nature of the WAYYIQTOL. 
This can only be found by a study of the Hebrew text itself.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





> Hi Rolf
> You wrote:
>
> The witness of the Targums and the LXX cannot
> be used to find the meaning of the Hebrew text.
>
> Why do you say that? I would rather think the opposite since Hebrew 
> was still a spoken language at the time that the Targums and LXX 
> were made (although not by everybody), so I would assume that the 
> translators had a better understanding and knowledge of the language 
> than what we can have today. They might not have known the modern 
> grammatical terms, but still understood the meaning of the language. 
> As far as the Masoretes and Karaites are concerned, I would agree 
> that their understanding might be more influenced by other spoken 
> languages of their time, since Hebrew was no longer their native 
> language, but only heard in synagogue.
>
> Regards
> Chavoux Luyt