Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jonathan,

Your analogy between English and Swahili stresses the important point that we 
at the outset do not know what a language is like. If we have preconceived 
ideas about what a dead language should look like, that can prevent us from 
making a balanced analysis of the dead language. Take for example narratives. 
The default narrative verb in many languages is either simple past or 
perfective. What do we see in the Semitic languages?

Akkadian: the short prefix form IPRUS is the default form. This form can also 
be used for present and future, and the longer prefix form, IPARRAS, can be 
used with past reference.

Aramaic (Daniel) QATAL (281 with past reference)  is the default form, but  
YIQTOL (178 with past reference) is also extensively used.

Ugaritic: YAQTUL is the default form. This form is also extensively used with 
future reference.

Ethiopic: NAGARA (suffix form) is the default form; this form can also refer 
to present and future. YENAGGER (note that this is the long prefix form) can 
also be used for the past. The short prefix form, YINGER,  is often modal.

Phoenician (Karatepe inscription): Infinitive absolute is the default form; 
QATAL is also to some extent used.

Hebrew: WAYYIQTOL. (13,539 with past reference) is the default form, but 
QATAL (7,446 with past reference) is also extensively used. YIQTOL (1,027 
with past reference)  is also used.

We see that the default narrative form of Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Hebrew is 
the prefix form, whereas the default form in Aramaic and Ethiopic is the 
suffix form. In Phoenician the default form is infinitive absolute. In 
Akkadian there is no suffix form, but there is a form with and infix, the 
perfect. There is not a clear pattern in these languages, and the fact that 
both prefix forms and suffix forms can have past, present, and future 
reference, suggests that we should not force an Indo-European or Slavic model 
upon a dead Semitic language. This means that we cannot conclude that the 
WAYYIQTOL is either preterit or perfective, because this is the case in so 
many languages. In fact, there is no compelling reason why the WAYYIQTOL 
cannot be imperfective.  A careful and extensive study is needed to find the 
true nature of the ver forms.

 I see that you study at a Baptist Bible school. That reminds me of 
interesting events that happened at Southern Baptist Theological  Seminary in 
the 1940s and 1950s: Three dissertations which were critical to the 
traditional view of WAYYIQTOL were published in the course of twelve years:

L. Eddlemann, "Waw consecutive and the Consecution of Tenses as Reflected by 
Eight Century Hebrew," 1943.
J.J. Curtis, "An Application of the Syntax of Hebrew Verbs to the Writings of 
Amos," 1949.
B.E. Scoggin, "Application of Hebrew Verb States to a Translation of Isaiah 
40-45," 1955.

These dissertations are still worth reading. The same is true with the 
grammar of  J.W. Watts, "A Survey of the Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament," 
1951, 1964, which argues along the same lines.


Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Torsdag 30. Mai 2013 23:10 CEST skrev Jonathan Mohler 
<jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com>:

> Thanks, Rolf, John and Isaac.
>
> I will use the word subjunctive to refer to the form of the verb.
> I want to contribute to the wayyiqtol/aspect thread by way of analogy.  I 
> preface "by analogy" because some might object to me bringing in an example 
> from a non semitic language.
>
> setup:
> In Swahili, the indicative mood is marked by the suffix -a.  The 
> subjunctive mood is marked by the suffix -e.
> Indicative verbs take tense affixes, while subjunctive verbs are tenseless.
> The subjunctive can function as a cohortative, a jussive, a softened 
> imperative, and like John's Ar. examples must follow particles that call 
> for potentiality, and volition.
> Indicative—           ni-li-end-a,  I went
>                               1s-past-go-ind
>
> Subjunctive—  ni-end-e, let me go (cohortative) 1s-go-subj
>                               u-end-e, go (softened imperative) 2s-go-subj
>                               a-end-e, let him go (jussive) 3s-go-subj
>                               mpaka aende, until he goes
>                               ili aende, in order that he go
>                               nataka uende, I want you to go
>
> argument (by analogy):
>
> In Matt. 21:28-32, Jesus tells the parable of the father who bid his two 
> sons to work in the field.  One son said he would, but he didn't go; his 
> brother said he wouldn't, but changed his mind and went.  In the English 
> phrase "he didn't go," "go" is indicative, In Swahili it is a subjunctive 
> a-si-end-e, 3s-neg-go-subj.  Swahili speakers, for reasons I have yet to 
> determine, choose a subjunctive, even though an indicative is available, 
> and would be grammatical.
>
> What prompted this in my mind was Ruth's comment that qatals and yiqtols 
> are different, and for some reason the author of Prov. 31 has chosen to 
> follow the qatal with a yiqtol.  In the native speakers mind a yiqtol is 
> still a yiqtol, as the subjunctive, in my Swahili mind, is still a 
> subjunctive in cases such as above.  I would still translate it "he didn't 
> go."
>
> Jonathan E. Mohler
> Baptist Bible Graduate School
> Springfield, Missouri, US
> On May 30, 2013, at 3:20 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
>