On 31/07/2005 15:31, Rolf Furuli wrote:
...
I will concentrate on Psalm 107: 17-20.
NIV has the following translation:
17. Some became fools (nominal cl. ) through their rebellious ways
and suffered affliction (YIQTOL) because of their iniquities.
18. They loathed (YIQTOL) all food and drew near (WAYYIQTOL) the
gates of death.
19. Then they cried (WAYYIQTOL) to the LORD on their trouble,
and he saved (YIQTOL) them from their distress.
20. He sent forth (YIQTOL) his word and healed them (WEYIQTOL), he
rescued (WEYIQTOL) them from the grave (YIQTOL)
It seems that the NIV translators viewed these verses as historical
narrative. They are expressed by 5 YIQTOLs, 2 WEYIQTOLs, and 2 WAYYIQTOLs.
...
There is actually some evidence that the WAYYIQTOLs here have in fact been
wrongly pointed, and should be WEYIQTOLs. In v.18 the consonantal form is
WYGY(W. But the WAYYIQTOL of the hiphil of NG( is usually WYG( without a
second yod, i.e. the similar to the shortened or apocopated form of YIQTOL
according to the normal rule. The yod here implies a long, non-apocopated
YIQTOL, and when a vav is prefixed to this the result is usually a
WEYIQTOL. Of course for many verbs, including the following WYZ(QW, the
two forms are identical. So, this suggests a case where either these two
successive verbs had been misinterpreted in the pronunciation tradition as
narrative WAYYIQTOL (because the original semantic or pragmatic
distinctions were no longer fully understood) or where the Masoretes
misheard the verbs. But the Masoretes had got back on track by v.20 and
correctly wrote WEYIQTOL.
I accept that WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL often sounded very similar to the
Masoretes, and so were sometimes confused in transcription. But there
remains good evidence that they were originally distinct verb forms.
It would be instructive to do a survey of the rather few apparent
WAYYIQTOLs which are not apocopated when they could be, and of any
WEYIQTOLs which are apocopated, to see if these tend to occur in places
where the context suggests that the two forms could have been exchanged.
For the semantic distinction may be not so much in the distinct prefixes
as in the apocopation, which strongly tends to indicate modality when
there is no prefixed vav.
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.