Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jonathan,

I respect you as a person who make sound judgements.  In this case I cannot 
follow your reasoning, and I think you are forcing the theory that some verb 
forms carry the mainline and others the off-line on the text. This is a 
theory that often collides head on with the Hebrew text. Below I quote the 
NIV translation of Proverbs 31:12-27, which is a good rendering of the Hebrew 
text. This is a description of the excellent wife, in most cases with two 
parallell clauses. I see no mainline and off-line and no modal forms (The 
Bible translations I have consulted, consistently take the verbs as 
indicative and follow the pattern of the NIV.)

Prov. 31:12  ¶  She brings him good, not harm,
                all the days of her life.
Prov. 31:13  ¶  She selects wool and flax
                and works with eager hands.
Prov. 31:14  ¶  She is like the merchant ships,
                bringing her food from afar.
Prov. 31:15  ¶  She gets up while it is still dark;
                she provides food for her family
                and portions for her servant girls.
Prov. 31:16  ¶  She considers a field and buys it;
                out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
Prov. 31:17  ¶  She sets about her work vigorously;
                her arms are strong for her tasks.
Prov. 31:18  ¶  She sees that her trading is profitable,
                and her lamp does not go out at night.
Prov. 31:19  ¶  In her hand she holds the distaff
                and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
Prov. 31:20  ¶  She opens her arms to the poor
                and extends her hands to the needy.
Prov. 31:21  ¶  When it snows, she has no fear for her household;             
  for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
Prov. 31:22  ¶  She makes coverings for her bed;
                she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Prov. 31:23  ¶  Her husband is respected at the city gate,
                where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
Prov. 31:24  ¶  She makes linen garments and sells them,
                and supplies the merchants with sashes.
Prov. 31:25  ¶  She is clothed with strength and dignity;
                she can laugh at the days to come.
Prov. 31:26  ¶  She speaks with wisdom,
                and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
Prov. 31:27  ¶  She watches over the affairs of her household
                and does not eat the bread of idleness.




Tirsdag 10. September 2013 03:29 CEST skrev Jonathan Mohler 
<jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com>:

> I have a few points of disagreement with Karl, Ruth and Rolf. I will treat 
> the disagreements as they come up in my argument.  I do want to start by 
> saying that I lean toward a tenseless position, at least, in this passage.
>
> 1. Prov. 31:1-31, as a whole, is gnomic.  the evidence here seems to 
> indicate that the Qatal verb forms carry the mainline, and thus are the 
> principal carriers of gnomicity.  In other words, the gnomicity is the 
> overriding feature of each of these Qatal verb forms.  If these Qatals were 
> coded to Tense, it would be irrelevant.  In fact, I see them, at least in 
> this passage, as tenseless.
>
> 2. The other verb forms then are off-line, in the sense that their role is 
> not to carry the Aspect of gnomicity; instead, they seem to be mostly 
> modal, again, tenseless.  To use Karl's language, when I read a passage of 
> BH, I tend to feel a yiqtol and wayyiqtol as conveying mood, not tense.
>
> Example: the first yiqtol is modal.  It is properly translated as "can 
> find" not as "finds" or "will find."
>
> 3. Let me make a distinction.  The PASSAGE is tenseless.  I think this is 
> where I depart from Rolf, maybe only in respect to how I see this passage.  
> Rolf, I don't see qatals and yiqtols as exchanging tenses at will (how I 
> interpret you, please correct me if I'm off.)

RF: In my view, QATAL and YIQTOL never exchange "tense." The basis for my 
opinion is, 1) that no conjugation or verb form in Hebrew expresses tense 
(grammaticalized location in time), and 2) QATAL and YIQTOL have different 
semantic meanings. However, in some contexts, both forms can be USED 
similarly, for example in Psalm 2:1,2. How do you explain the use of this 
Psalm? My explanation is that in different contexts the need for making 
details visible is different, and because YIQTOL and QATAL are not mutually 
exclusive (as the English aspects are), but have some common characteristics 
and some exclusive characteristics, both forms can be used in some contexts. 
To illustrate what I mean, please look at 1), 2), 3) and 4) below.  All the 
four examples can describe exactly the same situation, but the details made 
visible are different. The imperfective aspect of 1) indicate iteration. The 
perfective aspect of 2) indicate that the knocking was completed, but whether 
the action was semelfactive or iterative is not made visible. Examples 3) and 
4) express simple past (which is a tense and not an aspect). But because of 
the adverbial in 3), the length of the knocking is made visible. Example 4 
has no adverbial, and no details as to whether the action was semelfactive or 
iterative is given.

1) Ann was knocking at the door.

2) Ann has knocked at the door.

3) Ann knocked at the door for ten seconds.

4) Ann knocked at the door.

Lastly, I ask: How do you explain that  QATALs have both future and past 
reference, and that WAYYIQTOLs have future reference in Jeremiah 50, 51?


> Karl, I do not believe this particular passage is in the present tense.  
> The passage is aspective, not tensed (as in Ruth's "the early bird catches 
> the worm."
>
> A native English speaker, slots the gnomic aspect with the Present form; in 
> my judgment, that doesn't mean it is in the present tense.  It is simply 
> CHARACTERISTIC or HABITUAL.  I think, Karl, I believe I am letting the text 
> speak, as you suggest, and am not imposing an outside model, although I am 
> influenced by Robert Longacre's Text-Linguistic/tagmemic approach.
>
> 4. It seems to me that the native BH speaker felt the sequential verb forms 
> as modal, even though English versions flatten both verb forms to gnomic. 
> Why? maybe the translators thought it seemed lighter and more accessible to 
> the English ear.
>
> Example:  "She looks (qatal) for wool and flax; and works (wayyiqtol) with 
> her hands in delight." NASB v13
>
> More in line with what a BH writer/speaker probably felt:
>
> "She rises (aspect) also . . . that she may give (mood) food to her 
> household"
>
> 5. The fronted wayyiqtol in verse 15 tells us that v14 and v15 are a unit
>
> 14  She is like merchant ships: she brings food from afar
> 15  She rises also while it is night
> And gives food to her household;
> And portions to her maidens
> NASB
>
> better:
>
> she is like merchant ships:
> she brings (qatal/gnomic) food from afar
> that she may rise (wayyiqtol/modal) while it is night
> and give(wayyiqtol/modal) food to her household,
> and portions to her maidens
>
> 6. Exegetically this model seems to be much more fruitful
>
> Jonathan E Mohler
> Graduate Student
> Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
> Springfield, MO
>

 Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway