Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf

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] to rolf
  • Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:49:38 +0200

Dear George,

It is good to see that we are in agreement as to verbal meaning—verbs have
the same meaning in prose and poetry. I do not use the terms "definite" and
"indefinite" related to verbs, because I find that the terms are somewhat
unclear and difficult to apply. However, below you illustrate what you mean
by a camera zoom. Interestingly, by the use of my parameters, event time,
reference time, and the deictic center, my view of YIQTOL and QATAL is the
very opposite of yours. Apart from using different parameters, one reason for
our opposite views may be that I analyze WAYYIQTOL as a YIQTOL with a
prefixed conjunction, whereas you, if I understand you correctly, believe
that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL are two different grammatical forms. The true
nature of verbs is much easier to see in past contexts than in present and
future ones. My findings are that WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOLs with past reference
focus on the details, and that QATALs and WEQATALs with past reference focus
on the evnet "from some distance" with details not visible.

My conclusions are based on the following characteristics:

WAYYIQTOLs can be used to make visible, 1) contative events, 2) ingressive
events, 3) events making visible the beginning of and event and a small part
of its continuation, 4) progressive events, 5) egressive events, and
resultative events.

QATALS can be used to make visible, 1) the whole event whitout details, 2) a
great part of the event, and 3) future perfect.

Both forms can be gnomic and ingressive (the ingressive meaning of QATAL is
restricted though).

On the basis of the functions mentioned above, I have found that
WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL make details visible, whereas QATAL/WEQATAL do not.

Bernard Comrie, "Aspect," 1976, p. 3, gives the following example of
imperfective verbs:

"John was reading when I entered."

The words "was reading" are imperfective, and they make visible a part (the
details) of the situation that held when "I entered." A different way of
explaining the situation is to say that reference time intersects event time
in the middle and make a small sequence of event time visible.
YIQTOLs/WAYYIQTOLs can have the same function as "was reading," but the
QATALs cannot have this function.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

An English example may illustrate the difference between the imperfective
WAYYIQTOL/YIQTOL and QATAL/WEQATAL.




Mandag 27. Mai 2013 02:08 CEST skrev George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:

> Rolf,
>
> Good questions! Thanks for asking—they are precisely the questions we need
> to be asking. The answer is no, the verbs do not mean something else in
> poetry. This is important, because we are still dealing with the same
> language—Hebrew. We need consistency, which is something that some models
> of the Hebrew verb have lacked. However, we are talking about a different
> register of language in poetry (it's not prose), and so words get used
> differently, even if the words themselves (in this case verbs) are the
> same. This is the same in any language, really. It's not unique to Hebrew.
>
> In poetry, you usually don't have an account of something or a scene
> unfolding, as you do in narrative, for example. Rather, you have an
> exploration of ideas, sometimes quite abstract. The lack of deictic markers
> for timeframes, therefore, give the verbs a little more freedom. One of the
> frequent techniques in poetry is stylistic variation, in which one colon
> within a parallel pairing uses a qatal, while the second colon in the
> pairing uses a yiqtol. This is still a definite/indefinite difference. The
> nature of parallelism and poetic devices allows for this kind of word
> pairing such that there can be synonymous parallelism but with clear
> distinction between the two lines. The issue is one of focus: yiqtol is
> unfocused, while qatal is focused. You might like to think of it as similar
> to a camera zoom: yiqtol gives you a wide angle shot, perhaps a bit fuzzy
> and not so sharp, while qatal gives you a hi-def close up with vividness.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> Sydney, Australia
>
> From: Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no<mailto:rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>>
> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2013 11:16 PM
> To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf
>
> Dear George,
>
> I have two questions:
>
> 1) Is the meaning of the verb forms different in Hebrew prose and poetry?
> If the answer is affirmative, do we find a similar difference in other
> languages? (BTW, your clauses with examples of YIQTOL and QATAL are poetry).
>
> 2) Is there a difference in meaning between the YIQTOLs and QATALs in Psalm
> 2:1, 2?
>
> Psalm 2:1, 2 (NIV): "Why do the nations conspire (QATAL) and the people
> plot (YIQTOL) in vain?
> The kings of the earth take their stand
> (YIQTOL) and the rulers gather (QATAL) against the LORD and
> his Anonted One."
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
> Stavern
> Norway
>
>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page