Once again, this is from John... ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788
Begin forwarded message: > From: "John A. Cook" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 120, Issue 21 > Date: December 13, 2012 1:29:23 PM CST > To: James Spinti <[email protected]> > > Dear Rolf, > > My comments appear seriatim below (i've cut out the earlier levels to save > some space). > > On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:27:19 +0100 >> From: "Rolf" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fwd: Tense >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <a1f-50ca0200-1f-40b45880@62831029> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Dear John, >> >> RF: I have the following comments on a part of your post: >> >> Is this the way you use to discuss matters with colleagues and fellow >> scholars?: "You force your preconceived notions onto the text." In my >> student days I was taught that we should treat our colleagues in a cordial >> and respectful way. But your language is rude and not worthy of a scholarly >> discussion. > > JAC: I'm not sure how it is rude to point out that you appear to force > preconceived notions onto the text; we are talking about your argument. But > perhaps we ought to bear in mind that there may be no final answer to what > language qualifies as "rude" or "cordial" in academic discussion (tongue in > cheek!). >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You force your preconceived notions onto the text in a way no more >>>>> acceptable than the old rabbinic explanation for how this account can >>>>> appear next to that of Genesis 1: to wit, God "RE-FORMED" all the >>>>> creatures for Adam to name because the first set (Genesis 1) ran away! >>>>> Here we have a simple narrative sequence of wayyiqtols followed by two >>>>> modal yiqtols: >> >> RF: The setting is as follows: I have analyzed the 80.000 finite and >> infinite verbs of Classical Hebrew using the parameters deictic center, >> event time, and reference time. One conclusion of this study, which lasted >> ten years, is that the WAYYIQTOL is not an independent grammatical form. >> But it is a YIQTOL with a prefixed conjunction. You disagree with this >> conclusion, something that I respect. But you cannot rightly say that a >> conclusion reached after a long and careful study, represents "preconceived >> notions." When a scholar has reached a conclusion regarding the meaning of a >> verb form, it is normal that s/he applies this conclusion to the text and to >> the translation of sentences. To say that this is the same as "to force upon >> the text" preconceived notions is repulsive language. >> >> >>>>> >>>>> 'Yhwh God FORMED out of the ground every animal of the field and every >>>>> bird of the air and he BROUGHT them to the man to see what he MIGHT call >>>>> them; and whatever the man WOULD call them that was/is its name.' >>>>> >>>>> A few comments: (1) the initial two verbs are simply past narratives >>>>> (yes, past tense, grammaticalized temporal location as prior to the >>>>> speaker's deictic center and then, once the narrative sequence is begun >>>>> the verbs pragmatically express simple successive events (see Smith >>>>> 2003); (2) the first yiqtol makes perfectly good sense as an irrealis >>>>> mood 'might'?i.e., God gave the man the chance to call the creatures >>>>> whatever he wanted to; (3) the final yiqtol then expresses what the man >>>>> wanted to call them (i.e., would = past of will = volitive expression not >>>>> tense); (4) the final null copula clause seems ambiguous: for the ancient >>>>> reader these names are the ones that are still used in their own >>>>> reference time, so it might be better present than past reference here. >> >> RF: Your translations and comments are based on your study of Hebrew verbs >> and the conclusion that WAYYIQTOL is past tense and perfective, and my >> translations and comments are based on my study of Hebrew verbs and the >> conclusion that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL are equivalent and represent the >> imperfective aspect. > > JAC: So your point is . . . ? Your defense would appear to amount to (1) > "I've studied a whole lot of the verbs, so my view has merit and should be > respected and not challenged" and (2) "You take your view, I take mine, lets > leave it at that." One can claim to have walked 100 miles to get somewhere, > but if you walked the wrong direction there is no merit in that! So we are > back to our most basic difference, which would seem to be that I on the one > hand think that certain theories and explanations are superior to others, and > your view, that seems to want to simply let every theory that people have > worked hard on stand and at the same time admit we'll never understand the > verbal system. I prefer my position to yours if we are to make any real > advancement in our knowledge. >> >> >>>>> >>>>>> The imperfective force of the WAYYIQTOL FORM is clearly seen in 2:21 >>>>>> where one WAYYIQTOL intersects another WAYYIQTOL: "Then YHWH God caused >>>>>> a deep sleep to fall (WAYYIQTOL) upon the man. And while he was sleeping >>>>>> (WAYYIQTOL), he took (WAYYIQTOL) one of his ribs, and closed up >>>>>> (WAYYIQTOL) the flesh over its place." >>>>>> >>>>>> The third WAYYIQTOL expresses a state "while he was sleeping" and this >>>>>> state is intersected by the next WAYYIQTOL "he took one of the man's >>>>>> ribs." A parallel clause is: While John was reading the paper, Kate >>>>>> entered the room." Such a sentence is used by Comrie and others to >>>>>> demonstrate that the English participle FORM is imperfective. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not clearly seen; here you miss that the stative verbs may >>>>> easily fit within a narrative sequence by their ambiguous >>>>> stative-inchoative interpretation: >>>>> >>>>> 'Yhwh God MADE a deep sleep FALL upon the man and he FELL ASLEEP >>>>> (inchoative past narrative) and he took one of the ribs from the man and >>>>> he closed the flesh over it.' >>>>> >>>>> The intersection of time here comes from the fact that 'sleep' is not >>>>> fully bound by the past-tense, perfective-aspect wayyiqtol (se Smith >>>>> 1999; Cook 2004, 2012); but the narrative sequence continues to hold to >>>>> the irreversibility principle that defines narrative: the events cannot >>>>> be reported in the reverse order without a change in meaning (i.e., sleep >>>>> fell first, then man fell asleep, then God took a rib, then he closed it >>>>> up; it cannot happen with the same meaning in any other order). >>>>> >>>>> You need to do reading beyond Comrie and Olsen so as to discover the >>>>> gradual nuancing of these things in linguistics; unlike the field of >>>>> biblical studies, dates of publications really matter in linguistics! >> >> I have 10 Bible translations on my computer. JPS says: "So the LORD God cast >> a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and >> closed up the flesh at the spot." The translations NAB, NIV, NJB, NLT-SE, >> RSV, SEGR (French), and TEV have similar readings. I suppose that the >> translators of these 9 versions were familiar with modern linguistics. Yet >> they translate 2:21 in a similar way as I do. NRSV is neutral and Luther >> has: "Da liess Gott der HERR einen Tiefen Schlaf fallen auf den Menschen, >> und er schlief ein. Und er nahm eine seiner Rippen und Schloss dei Stelle >> mit Fleisch." > > JAC: I think Karl might take some issue with your reliance on translations! > It is rather a broad and simplistic claim to say that "the translators of > these 9 versions were familiar with modern linguistics." That is in no wise > the case; most such translators, unless associated with a Bible society, are > biblical scholars who have never taken any linguistic course. But, if you > want to introduce translations, I'm assuming you are using the old JPS, for > the NJPS (1985) has this: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon > the man, and he slept. "He slept" or "He fell asleep" are both accurate > renderings of the wayyiqtol of a stative verb—past tense and perfective > aspect. > > John > http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/ > >> >> I fully respect that you have a different view of the Hebrew verbal system >> than I have, and that you argue in favor of that. But please argue in a >> civilized and cordial way. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Rolf Furuli >> Stavern >> Norway >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
