Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jonathan:

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

On Sep 10, 2013, at 5:19 AM, K Randolph wrote:

…

How is the mood communicated by the Qatal and Yiqtol different in the passage of verses 11–31?

I am saying that since the discourse is gnomic as a whole, that the Qatal's are slotted to carry the mainline of the discourse.  All other forms are supportive.

I’m with you so far, but these primary and secondary, supportive roles aren’t recognized modalities. Further, this pattern of primary and secondary/supportive/continuation is not limited to gnomic discourse.

 

 By extension, in their relationship to their main verb, they are part of the gnomic aspect of the sentence, but the primary function of these non-Qatals is to convey something like a subjunctive mood.

No, they still are indicative modality.

 

 I don't believe the native speaker saw these as interchangeable forms, instead, they must be in contrast.

Agreed. 

Example: the first yiqtol is modal.  It is properly translated as "can find" not as "finds" or "will find."

This is verse 10, where I think the Yiqtol is model, indicating a subjunctive mood.

Yes, and BH writers/speaker NEVER choose a qatal to function as a subjunctive.  Thus, Qatal and Yiqtol are in contrast by default in the mind of the native speaker.

While I have yet to find a subjunctive modality carried by a Qatal verb, the optative modality is carried by both conjugations as well as the indicative modality. The imperative modality is carried by the Yiqtol, Wayiqtol and Weqatal, but I have yet to find a Qatal imperative. Therefore it appears that modality is only sometimes the reason for the difference in conjugation.

But all the following verbs carry the indicative modality, hence modality is only sometimes a reason for the different conjugations. 

I disagree.  I think you are imposing your English paradigm on BH.

Nope. I read this passage once in English, decades ago. Every other time I’ve read it has been in Hebrew.

 

 If you are correct, in that we shouldn't impose TAM on BH, then why are you imposing English habitual on BH.

I’m not. See above, I don’t know this passage in English.

 

 Moreover, I do not see Characteristic/habitual as Present Continuous at all.

Here I have to disagree.

This is not really gnomic in the sense of “a stitch in time saves nine” or “the early bird catches the worm”, rather it refers to repeated and habitual actions taken by the woman and those around her. As such the aspect is imperfective.

 

…

If Qatal and Yiqtol forms are in contrast, we must look at it another way, even if we are limited by an English paradigm.

Forget English. Look at it in Hebrew. The idea of primary vs. secondary is not English, but it fits Biblical Hebrew use. It also explains the wide use of the Wayiqtol in narrative.

…

The passage, verses 11–31, as a whole is imperfective aspect, in that the whole passage refers to repeated or habitual actions in both Qatal and Yiqtol verbs.

I contend that the Qatals carry the habitual, while the yiqtol and wayyiqtols add support by offering something additional, such as subjunctive mood, usually functioning as purpose.  The yiqtols and wayyiqtols are habitual, only in that they are tied to what I call the mainline verb form, Qatal.  But the modal character of these forms trumps the aspectual.  In other words, the Qatals are aspective, while the other forms are both aspective and modal.  Does that sound better?

Nope. 

…

She's always helping (present continuous) other people.  Once you have married (perfect) her, you will never regret it (future).” In English, the gnomic use doesn’t necessarily refer to the present. But for the discussion here, I notice that all the actions in Proverbs 31:11–31 do refer to present, repeated actions, none to actions in the past nor the future. Or to put it in more technical terms, the time deixis for all the verbs is contemporaneous to the description.

I like this last line!

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

I see all the verbs in this passage, verses 11–31, as indicative modality.

Just my point, I don't!  The translated verbs maybe, but that is due to the Modern English paradigm, which tends to flatten every verb out.  Modern English, especially American shuns subjunctive usage, exactly in those situation where most languages call for a modal form.

"I hide your word in my heart, so I won't sin against you"

Most languages are still quite at home with the BH feeling:

"Your word, I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against you"

Look in the Hebrew for this verse, Psalm 119:11—it has the word למען which carries the idea of “in order that” followed by the subjunctive, therefore it’s not a good example of the point you want to make.

 

…

  I think I am actually in line with your idea that BH should be allowed to provide us with its own verb paradigm/model.

That’s exactly my point when I claim that TAM is insufficient to describe Biblical Hebrew conjugations. 

 

 

that she may rise (wayyiqtol/modal) while it is night

and give(wayyiqtol/modal) food to her household,

and portions to her maidens

Mmmmmm … could be read that way, I hadn’t considered that reading. I’d leave out the “may”. It’s still present tense, imperfective aspect as referring to contemporaneous, repeated actions.

6. Exegetically this model seems to be much more fruitful

Can you apply that model approach to all the verses in this passage? I can’t. 

This sounds like a fun challenge.  Of course, I am just theorizing, and trying to add my multi-lingual perspective to the argument.

You’re not the only one here with multi-lingual perspective.

Jonathan E Mohler

Graduate Student

Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

Springfield, MO

It looks like you were thinking through your fingers as you wrote this message.

Of course, it is a dialogue after all. ;-)

Yes, and thinking through one’s fingers can sometimes lead to breakthroughs.

Jonathan E. Mohler

Karl W. Randolph.