Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

What I see is that you (as well as many others, so this is not personal) use a model first, then apply it to Biblical Hebrew language.

The problem is that the data don’t support your model.

The patterns which are clear in Proverbs 31:10–31 can be applied to the rest of Tanakh and still make sense, whereas your model doesn’t fit that passage. In that passage, all the verbs are used exactly the same, as far as your model is concerned, a model according to European languages. They are with one exception indefinite, present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative mood; the one exception is subjunctive mood. Yet there’s a pattern that distinguishes the Qatal from the Yiqtol. Within that pattern, the Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol are treated exactly the same.

We need to analyse Biblica Hebrew according to its own standards, not according to standards useful for other languages, or even language families.

Your model is one of the things I was taught about Biblical Hebrew verbs that I found I had to jettison when reading Tanakh through, because the data contradict the model.

Rolf has done the study with greater granularity, statistical analysis, better knowledge of linguistics and scholarly literature, but it appears that he limited himself to tense. What I notice is that the Yiqtol / Wayyiqtol applies to a greater range of moods than does Qatal, in fact is often a marker that another mood applies, but that’s not its main use.

I read the text first of all to analyse, what does it mean? No, not the subjective “What does it mean to me?” rather what does it mean objectively? That’s where all that I was taught about the Biblical Hebrew verb fell apart: tense, aspect, definite/indefinite, none of those could be consistently applied to the whole text.

Do we go with models, or with data?

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

Karl,

I disagree with your perception that qatal and yiqtol have the same definiteness. See my response to Rolf in this thread.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia