Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear List-memebers,

The concluding words John Cook's review of my dissertations are:

"Although Furuli's study of the Hebrew verb is novel, it is little more than 
a novelty. His theory rests
on a faulty linguistic understanding of tense-aspect- mood, he has conflated 
semantics, pragmatics, and
contextual clues, and he misunderstands many of the Hebrew examples he cites."

In contrast with John's words, Elizabeth R. Hayes in her review says 
(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+New+Understanding+of+the+Verbal+System+of+Classical+Hebrew%3A+an...-a0186861761):

"While not all will agree with Furuli's conclusions regarding the status of 
the wayyiqtol as an imperfective form, his well-argued thesis contributes 
towards advancing methodology in Hebrew scholarship."

And John Kaltner said:
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bookreviews.org%2Fpdf%2F5564_5860.pdf&ei=DvHKUJS0GeuL4gTUrIHYBA&usg=AFQjCNHi0y6Tylwg2XOFKNprX770CstPhg&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.bGE

"Semantic considerations have long dominated in treatments of the Hebrew 
verbal system, and Furuli’s call to take into account pragmatic factors is an 
important one that is worth considering. How his alternative model will be 
received remains to be seen, but at the very least his work might encourage 
some to think of more than just semantics when trying to understand the 
Hebrew verb."

It is worth comparing these two reviews with John's review; particularly 
their tone is different, and that is true with the presentation and 
conclusions as well.


Now I will compare YIQTOLs with WAYYIQTOLs. I argue that the element that 
carries the action forward in the sequence of events that constitue a 
narrative, is not the verb, but the prefixed conjunction of the verb:  AND he 
did that.. AND she did that, AND...  Further I argue that  WAYYIQTOL is a 
YIQTOL with prefixed WAW, and therefore we expect that YIQTOLs  can be used 
in past settings when they are preceded by a word element that prevents the 
YIQTOL to have a prefixed WAW. This is exactly what we find!


SOME EXAMPLES WITH PAST SETTING:


2 Kings 3:24-26: 4 YIQTOLs, 1 WEQATAL, 7 WAYYIQTOLs

1 KIngs 13:33: 1 QATAL,2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL, 1, 1 WEYIQTOL

Hosea 12:5: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 2 YIQTOLs

Nehemiah 9:27: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs, 1WEYIQTOL

1 Samuel13:17, 18: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 3 WAYYIQTOLs

2 Chronicle 25:14: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs

2 Samuel 12:3: 1 QATAL,  3 WAYYIQTOLs, 3 YIQTOLs

2 Kings 8:22: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL (same root)

Judges 9:38: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL

Isaiah 39:3 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL, 1 QATAL (of BW() and 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 QATAL

1 Kings 3:15, 16: 5 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

Joshua 10:11, 12: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 1 YIQTOL

2 Kings 16:4,5: 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

2 Samuel 12:31: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 QATAL, 1 WEQATAL, 1 YIQTOL

2 Samuel 15:6: 2WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

Genesis 48:17 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

1 Chronicle 1:8: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

Genesis 29:2. 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL

Genesis 37:7: 1 WAYYIQTOL, 1 YIQTOL

2 Samuel 17:17. 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 YIQTOLs

Judges 6:4: 2 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

Daniel 12:8: 1 QATAL, 1 YIQTOL, 1 WAYYYIQTOL

2 Samuel 22:39. 3 WAYYIQTOLs, 1 YIQTOL

2 Samuel 2:28: 2 WAYYITOLs, 1 YIQTOL

Ezra 10:8: 2 YIQTOLs

1 Samuel 1:13: 1 YIQTOL, 1 WAYYIQTOL

I argue that the WAYYIQTOLs and the YIQTOLs represent the same form, and that 
the prefix-difference is pragmatic, that is, the reason why the YIQTOLs do 
not have a prefixed WAW  is in most cases that they are preceded by another 
element that prevents a WAW  from being prefixed.

Conclusion: When the same Ugaritic verb form (conjugation) can have both past 
and future reference ( as shown in my last post), why cannot the same Hebrew 
verb form have both past and future reference?


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stvern
Norway