Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

karl,

> now,וילכו אחרי ההבל (ibid:5) is somewhat different, since there is a real alternative: ואחרי ההבל הלכו .

>
> Why the alternative not ואחרי ההבל ילכו as in the example of Proverbs 31:11, 14, 18, 27, 30 just as one example?
>

here i only reply to this part of your email.

That’s wise. That way we thrash one issue at a time, not the whole schmear. 

having said that the BHVS is not 100% TAM-related, i still maintain that it is TAM-related in its own way.
i think it is a mistake to associate TAM with european languages, as you do, in spite of its formative
history, since it was applied quite successfully in analyzing most of the world's languages. the
problem is that in each language you have to adjust your TAM parameters, and even modify the exact
TAM model you use. and more so in ancient languages, due to their more isolated development and
lack of sofistication.

The adjusting of the TAM parameters is a slippery slope to misunderstanding. Would it not be better to add new categories to TAM where TAM doesn’t fit, than to reposition TAM to fit the language?

It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that part of the reason that there’s so much disagreement among BH scholars is because each one is making his own model, but using common terminology that ends up confusing people.

the question is, what are the BH parameters. this is what my book is about.

 וילכו אחרי ההבל - this is EPISODIC, i.e. an account of real facts. here we expect PAST EVENTS
to apply either qatal or wayiqtol. this use is plainly tensual, UNLESS BARRED BY SYNTAX.
whereas for FUTURE  EVENTS you would expect to find yiqtol or weqatal.

In this case the context is clearly past, so it doesn’t matter how the verbs are conjugated.

In the Proverbs example that I cited, Yiqtols and Wayiqtols are used interchangeably to present the same grammatical pattern. In Proverbs it is present continuous indicative use.

While I haven’t done statistical analysis as have others, I have learned not to expect the pattern you mention above.

However, most Wayiqtols are found in narrative, and with narrative being such a large portion of Tanakh, it skews the stats. But when Wayiqtols are used for future reference (from the speaker’s viewpoint), doesn’t that negate the above paragraph?

this rules out your suggestion ואחרי ההבל ילכו: this does not describe a PAST
EVENT in the EPISODIC case. 

Does it?

Sorry, I’ve put you in an impossible place of having to prove the negative, so let me think about this a bit and see if I find positive examples. I expect to find them. Right now I’m at a temporary hotspot and don’t have the time to respond completely.

 

now to your examples from proverbs. these are all REPEATED EVENTS in GNOMIC situations. in
fact, most of proverbs and psalms is gnomic. these situations describe a quality of the action
which is atemporal. BH reserves for the repeated event the yiqtol form, independent
of time: past, present and future. thus, they fall under a different category, and so are tensed
differently. now, SEQUEL REPEATED EVENTS use wayiqol, since the waw is there, and it is inverting.

The Proverbs passage I started to write a paper on it to present at a meeting in Germany, before being disinvited by the institution. If I can get that paper published, I’d finish it for publication.

In that passage there are about equal number of Yiqtols (some of them Wayiqtols) and Qatals, but all of them used for repeated events in gnomic situations. In other words, used in the same manner as present tense, indicative mood, imperfective aspect verbs. It’s from many examples like this that I claim that TAM doesn’t fit the BH verbal system.

the repeated yiqtol is not tensual, and aspect (imperfective) is a better model for it.

ושלל לא יחסר - there is no attempt to label this as past, present or future; rather, to
describe a quality. so, repeated event in yiqtol.

ממרחק תביא לחמה - ותקם  -  again, תביא uses atemporal description (repeated event) in yiqtol. it
concentrates not on the action, but on the distance.
ותקם (sequel repeated event) in wayiqtol.

Context causes me to disagree with this response. 

while you might argue that וילכו אחרי ההבל also describes a repeated event, its rendering is not atemporal
but specifically past, since the speaker wanted to imply a past event. thus, the choice of episodic or gnomic
speech depends on what type of clause you want to form: factual or qualitative.

The context clearly indicated previous generations, … 

nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph.