Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tense

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:09:17 +0100

Dear John,


You wrote:

JAC: So your point is . . . ? Your defense would appear to amount to (1)
"I've studied a whole lot of the verbs, so my view has merit and should be
respected and not challenged" and (2) "You take your view, I take mine, lets
leave it at that." One can claim to have walked 100 miles to get somewhere,
but if you walked the wrong direction there is no merit in that! So we are
back to our most basic difference, which would seem to be that I on the one
hand think that certain theories and explanations are superior to others, and
your view, that seems to want to simply let every theory that people have
worked hard on stand and at the same time admit we'll never understand the
verbal system. I prefer my position to yours if we are to make any real
advancement in our knowledge.

RF: You have completely misunderstood my point:

When I, after a study of thousands of verbs on the basis of fundamental
linguistic parameters, reached my conclusions as to the meaning of the Hebrew
conjugations, and I use these conclusions in my translation of Hebrew
clauses, it is completely wrong by any standard to say that I "force
preconceived notions upon the text." This is deragatory language!
This is so, because, 1) conclusions drawn after a long study cannot be termed
"PRECONCEIVED notions," and 2) the applications of one's conclusions in the
translation of clauses is a normal procedure and cannot be called "to FORCE
something (preconceived notions) onto the text."

I have never said that my conclusions should not be challenged. To the
contrary, I welcome challenges, because I do not think that I have the final
answers. I believe that I have followed a good scientific approach, and that
my conclusions are reasonable and sound. But the value of these conclusions
will be visible when they are challenged.

In connection with your comments on my translation of Genesis 2:19, I wrote
in a previous post: "Your translations and comments are based on your study
of Hebrew verbs and the conclusion that WAYYIQTOL is past tense and
perfective, and my translations and comments are based on my study of Hebrew
verbs and the conclusion that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL are equivalent and
represent the imperfective aspect."

These word do not mean that I say; "Leave me alone and do not challenge my
conclusions." The words must be understood in their context. When Karl
referred to the verbs of Proverbs 31, your comment was that the YIQTOLs of
the past setting represented "durative past." (The term "durative past" is a
misnomer, because durativity is a lexical property and not an aspectual one—a
verb in any conjugation that is marked for durativity will always remain
durative—but I understand what you mean.) Why did you use the term "durative
past"? Because the context of Proverbs 31 shows that the force of the YIQTOLs
is different from the force of the WAYYIQTOLs or the QATALs? Absolutely not.
(Correct me if I am wrong). You used the term because of your understanding
of the Hebrew conjugations: YIQTOL in a past context is different from a
YIQTOL in a future context. Genesis 2:19 can be put in the same situation as
Proverbs 31; we cannot know whether my imperfective translation or your
preterit/perfective translation is correct. This is the situation with most
of the WAYYIQTOLs, because most WAYYIQTOLs occur in narrative contexts.
Therefore, in these contexts we cannot proceed further. So here we must leave
one another alone.

What we need to do, and where the challenge should be, is to find contexts
where we can see if WAYYIQTOL is imperfective, perfective or preterit. I
will return to that.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page