Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Chavoux,

See my comments below. 
 
 
Mandag 17. Desember 2012 12:31 CET skrev Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Shalom Rolf
> 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
> > To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Cc:
> > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:12:31 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense
> > Dear Chavoux,
> >
> > Se my comments below.
> <snip>
> > RF: Regardless of our view of the Classical Hebrew verbal system we must 
> > study the text that we have. There are many orthographical variations, 
> > but if we accept the dates given in the different books; thus accepting 
> > that the text was written down over a period of several hundred years, 
> > the text is remarkably uniform.  If we take bad grammar into 
> > consideration, each scholar must, when he detects a clause that 
> > contradicts a particular view, ask whether this may be caused by bad 
> > grammar. We can illustrate the situation by looking at some of the 
> > examples above and the use of the negation L(.
> >
> > Judges 6:4 tells us three things, which are connected wit WAW (and): And 
> > they camped (WAYYIQTOL), and they destroyed (WAYYIQTOL),  and they did 
> > not let anything remain (YIQTOL). The reason for the use of YIQTOL is 
> > that the verb is preceded by WAY+negation. if the negation was removed, 
> > the WAW would have been prefixed to the YIQTOL and would probably have 
> > been pointed as a WAYYIQTOL.
> >
> > Daniel 12:8 tells us three thing which are connected with WAW (and): And 
> > I heard (QATAL), and I did not understand (WAW+ negation+ YIQTOL), and I 
> > said (WAYYIQTOL with paragogic he). The explanation is the same; if the 
> > negation was removed, the WAW would have been prefixed to the YIQTOL  and 
> > would probably have been pointed as a WAYYIQTOL.
> >
> > 2 Samuel 22:38-39 tells us seven things which are connected wit WAW 
> > (and): And I pursued (YIQOL), and I  destroyed (WAYYIQTOL), and I did not 
> > turn (WAW+negation+YIQTOL) and I finished (WAYYIQTOL), and I crushed 
> > (WAYYIQTOL), and they could not rise (WAW+NEGATION+YIQTOL), and they fell 
> > (WAYYIQTOL). here we have the same situation as in the two other 
> > examples. Note also the clause-initial YIQTOL.
> >
> > 2 Samuel 2:28 and 1 Samuel 1:13 follow the same pattern. Can the use of 
> > the YQTOLs in these cases be caused by bad grammar? I see no reason for 
> > that, because the same pattern is followed in all the examples, and it is 
> > a logical pattern. There is no temporal differences between the 
> > WAYYIQTOLs and the YIQTOLs, and why should there be any aspectual 
> > diffrence? The YIQTOLs rather than WAYYIQTOLs are used for syntactical 
> > (pragmatic) reasons, because they are preceded by a negation that 
> > prevents the WAW  to be prefixed to the verb.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> > Stavern
> > Norway
> Thanks Rolf, I think I understand you better now. Do I understand you
> correctly, that in _narrative_ (i.e. typically starting with QATAL and
> then continuing with WAYIQTOLS) when there are "inbetween" words, like
> LO, the WAYIQTOL changes to a W'"inbetween word" YIQTOL, with
> basically the same meaning as "WAYIQTOL" (but _not_ the same meaning
> as YIQTOL without waw - possibly followed with WAQATAL)?

My basic point is that the WAYYIQTOL is a YIQTOL with prefixed WAW. A 
narrative is a description of a sequence of events. It has past reference and 
needs not start with a QATAL. Most WAYYIQTOLs occur in narratives, and the 
verbs carrying the action forward in a narrative have past reference. The 
problem is that the clauses in a narrative with WAYYIQTOLs are not 
transparent. This means that we see the past reference (their outside nature) 
, but we cannot know whether the past reference is pragmatic or semantic (the 
inside nature). We cannot know whether the WAYYIQTOL represents 
grammaticalized past tense or the perfective aspect and the past reference 
therefore is semantic; or whether the past reference is caused by the 
narrative itself and the form is imperfective.

The situation is similar in more than 90 percent of the clauses of Classical 
Hebrew; we can see the temporal reference, but we cannot know at the outset 
know what causes this temporal reference, if particular verb forms have an 
intrinsic past or future reference or not. In order to find the meaning of 
the conjugations we must analyze clauses that are more transparent than the 
narrative clauses.

While we cannot know the real nature of the narrative WAYYIQTOLs, we can 
learn much from a study of the use of YIQTOLs with past reference. Of the 
1,027 YIQTOLs with past reference I discuss in my dissertation, 896 have one 
or more words preceding. In the Classical Hebrew writings we find and 
excessive use of the conjunction WAW ("and") (compared with moderns styles). 
I argue that in terse narrative style, the rule is that the WAW (in the form 
of WAY-) is prefixed to the YIQTOL verbs (=WAYYIQTOLs). But when the author 
finds it necessary to place one or more words before the verb, the WAY- 
element cannot  be prefixed, and the result was a YIQTOL. Because this 
happens so often, not only in connection with the negative L), but with many 
other particles and words as well, we have a good case in favor of the 
narrative WAYYIQTOL verb is a YIQTOL with a prefixed WAW. If the preceding 
elements were removed, in accordance with the rule, the YIQTOL would become a 
WAYYITOL,

Students are taught that when YIQTOLs are used with past reference, they 
normally represent what is called "durative past."  An interesting test  when 
YIQTOLs occurr in a past setting and the action is interpreted as continuing 
or iterative, would be to  ask whether this kind of action can be 
demonstrated by the context, or whethter the interpretation solely is based 
on theory. Proverbs 31 was recently mentioned, and a good question would be: 
How can we know that the YIQTOLs in this chapter signal "durative past" but 
the WAYYIQTOLs do not have this force?

As mentioned, most clauses with WAYYIQTOLs are not transparent, but some are. 
 In my disertation I give examples of WAYYIQTOLs with present and future 
reference, and WAYYIQTOLs having different kinds of imperfective 
characteristics. So, it important to analyze clauses where the real nature of 
the verbs are visible.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway.