Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear John,

You wrote:

 > I understand you when you describe Rolf's approach, but I don't find his 
 > approach well reasoned. Given that wayyiqtol appears 90% in past 
 > narrative, we have to ask several questions: Why is this verb form 
 > preferred for past narrative if not because it grammaticalizes past tense 
 > or perfective aspect (these are the most frequently used verb forms in 
 > past narrative in the world's languages)? If the context only determines 
 > the past tense meaning, then is wayyiqtol semantically vaccuus? How 
 > precisely do we know we are in a PAST narrative context apart from some 
 > tense indicator—which generally appears with the verb (to paraphrase 
 > Aristotle: the verb is that part of speech which, in addition to its 
 > lexical meaning, involves some element of TIME).
> >
> > In other words, behind this approach is viciously circular reasoning that 
> > has been trenchantly criticized by linguists: how do we know that a verb 
> > form indicates a certain discourse type except that we can independently 
> > determine both verb meaning and discourse type, in which case what is the 
> > point in having the verb form signal the discourse type if we already 
> > know what type it is?

RF: We agree that in living languages preterits or perfective verbs are used 
as narrative verbs. But this does not mean that the same is true in dead 
languages. Several times you have appealed to "common sense." In our study of 
dead languages we must use sound linguistic principles, but if "common sense" 
means that we view dead languages in the light  of modern ones, our 
interpretation of the data can be disturbed.

Regarding the Karatepe inscription, you say:

"4) So, to clearly address your question: on the view that the Inf. Abs. (or 
whatever the form) is a sort of serial verb form, we have a verb that does 
not grammaticalize past tense but appears in narrative. However, it is 
dependent on a leading form in order to maintain the past temporal location 
of the narrative. Without this leading verb, how could we know that the text 
is relating a past narrative as opposed to, say, a future prediction:

I am Azitiwada, the blessed/vizier of Baal, servant of Baal whom Awarku king 
of the Danunians made strong (PFV). Baal made me (PFV) a father and a mother 
to the Danunians. I revived (INF ABS) the Danunians; I widened (INF ABS) the 
land of the valley of Adana from the rising of the sun to its setting. (I ll. 
1-4)."

RF: Whether the infinitive absolutes, or "serial verb forms" as you call them 
are dependent of a leading form or not we cannot say. If you carefully read 
the text, you will see that the lexical meaning of the words and the time 
markers show that the setting is past. Moreover, kings made inscriptions in 
order to boast of their achievements, and not about what would happen in the 
future.  I appreciate that you admit that the "serial verb forms" have past 
reference but that they do not grammaticalize past tense.

Your question above in connection with WAYYIQTOL can now be applied to the 
Phoenician "serial verb forms": "Why is this verb form (infinitive absolute 
or serial verb) used for past narrative if not because it  grammaticalizes 
past tense or perfective aspect? Your own words above show that this question 
is unnecessary, because  Phoenician uses a verb form that is not 
grammaticalized past tense or perfective as the narrative verb.

I will also refer to an Ugaritic example. Some years ago I taught Ugaritic to 
a group of students for 4 semesters. The purpose of this course was to 
translate the Ugaritic texts into Norwegian. The result was a book that was 
published, where the students translated some texts and I translated a great 
part. One of the documents I translated was the saga og Keret (Kirta), and I 
was very happy with its verbs.  The first part of this saga has a future 
setting—what Keret will do is described; the second part has a past 
setting—what Keret did is described. And most interestingly, the same verbs 
having same verb forms— for the most part YAQTUL forms— are first used with 
future reference and then with past reference. It is worth noting that  the 
YAQTUL form is believed to be a forerunner to the short Hebrew preterite 
YIQTOL, which is believed to be a forerunner to the preterite WAYYIQTOL.

How can we apply modern common sense to Ugaritic and the saga of Keret? 
Perhaps we should abandon modern common sense in the study of the verbal 
systems of the dead Semitic languages and approach the languages from new 
directions.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway