Dear Chavoux,
In a discussion on the basis of sound linguistic principles, we
should distinguish between "past reference" and "past tense." The
term "past reference" is the broader of the two; the use of the term
implies that the action is past relative to a vantage point. But it
does not tell whether the past reference is pragmatic or semantic.
This means that the term does not tell us whether "past tense" is an
intrinsic part of the verb, or whether the past reference is caused
by different factors in the context. When we use "past tense," we
speak of "grammaticalization of past location in time."
In the Tanakh the prefix form with the prefix WAY(Y)- is the default
narrative form. Most WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, but the question
is whether this past reference is an intrinsic part of the WAYYIQTOL
form, or whether it is cause by the context. Narrative verbs have by
definition past reference. So we must ask whether the past reference
of WAYYIQTOL is caused by the narrative and the prefixed WAWs, that
portray past events in consecution. Or whether the WAYYIQTOL IS a
past tense.
We can only answer these questions by a study of the text of the
Tanakh. We cannot answer these questions by looking at a number of
WAYYIQTOLs; the only thing they tell us is that the reference is
past, and not WHY it is past. Therefore, we need to study the whole
text of the Tanakh, in order to find the relatively few instances
where we can see the inner constituency of the WAYYIQTOL form.
Every language has a verbal system that is different from that of
other languages. Because we find so few examples in the Tanakh where
the true nature of WAYYIQTOL is found, we will get absolutely no
information from the *translation* of Hebrew verb forms into another
language. For example, we may look at the translation of one hundred
WAYYIQTOLs in in the LXX. We see that they in most cases are
rendered by Greek aorists and have past reference. But why do the
Greek verbs have past reference? I analyze the aorist as an
expression of the perfective aspect, and it does not have an
intrinsic past tense. Others may analyze it differently. So why did
the Greek translators choose the aorist? We cannot answer this
question. Therefore, the choice of verb form in the LXX or in the
Targums tell as nothing regarding the true nature of the WAYYIQTOL.
This can only be found by a study of the Hebrew text itself.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Hi Rolf
You wrote:
The witness of the Targums and the LXX cannot
be used to find the meaning of the Hebrew text.
Why do you say that? I would rather think the opposite since Hebrew
was still a spoken language at the time that the Targums and LXX
were made (although not by everybody), so I would assume that the
translators had a better understanding and knowledge of the language
than what we can have today. They might not have known the modern
grammatical terms, but still understood the meaning of the language.
As far as the Masoretes and Karaites are concerned, I would agree
that their understanding might be more influenced by other spoken
languages of their time, since Hebrew was no longer their native
language, but only heard in synagogue.
Regards
Chavoux Luyt
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
