Dear Bryant, Your observations are very fine, and they illustrate the importance of taking pragmatic factors into account—the interplay of several factors conveys meanings that one factor could not convey alone. Psalm 2:1, 2 is in my view an example where the details of the verbal meaning are not important, even though the semantic meaning of YIQTOL and QATAL has not changed. The two aspects have some similarities and some differences, and because details are not important, both verbs forms can be used without any discernable difference in meaning.
It reminds me of a situation that very often occurred in my Akkadian classes. The students were supposed to read an Akkadian text before the lecture, to analyze the clauses and their verbs, and to make an oral translation in class. Then I asked grammatical questions. The forms of IPRUS (called preterite) and IPARRAS (called present) can in some parsings be difficult to distinguish. When I asked the student who gave a fine oral translation whether the verb was IPRUS or IPARRAS, very often the student could not answer because s/he had not considered this. It was enough to consider the lexical meanings, and the syntax and setting of the clause in order to find the correct English tense and to give a fine oral translation. The details were not important to achieve this. As I often have stressed, communication means to make visible a part of a meaning potential and to keep the rest invisible. In some clauses, only the similarities of the two different aspects are made visible and the differences are kept invisible. On this basis, the two QATALs and two YIQTOLs in Psalm 2:1, 2 can be used with the same meaning, even though they semantically have distinct meanings. To look at the LXX text is fine, but my experience is that it cannot throw any light of the meanings of Hebrew verbs, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between the verbs. Moreover, and translators must also take pragmatic factors into account when they translate, and that can mask the true meaning of the verbs of the source language. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 27. Mai 2013 01:04 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III" <[email protected]>: > Dear Rolf, > > That is a question that I posed several months back. > > In the example given from Psalm 2:1-2 it appears that issue of the genre, > i.e. poetry: Hebrew parallelism, chiasm, alliteration, etc, must be allowed > to give its own particular twist to function as well as to meaning. > > Psalm 2:1-2: Why do the nations (Gentiles - goyim) CONSPIRE (QATAL) > and the people PLOT (YIQTOL) in vain? > > The Kings of the earth take their stand (YIQTOL) > and The Rulers gather together (QATAL) > against the LORD (YHWH) > and His Anointed One (Meshiach)> > > Several items of interest here. > > 1) The chiasm of QATAL - YIQTOL - YIQTOL - QATAL. > 2) The conspiracy against both the LORD and His Messiah. > 3) The Synonymous Parallelism in 2:1-2 between the following: > a) Nations and people. > b) Conspire and Plot. > c) Kings and Rulers. > d) Take their stand and Gather together. > 4) The use of parallelism and chiasm as a mnemonic device. > > The LXX has the following: > > να τί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη > καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά; > 2 παρέστησαν οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς, > καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες συνήχθησαν > ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου > καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ > διάψαλμα > > This use of the parallelism, chiasm, alliteration, etc, although primarily > found in poetic literature is also found in prophecy. This creates a broader > picture than what would be found in narrative. The mind's eye, the > imagination is required to be used more fully than what would be normally > used for narrative. True, parallelism, chiasm, alliteration, etc. are found > in narrative, but not quite as much as in the poetic/prophetic portions of > the Tanakh. > > Rev. Bryant J. Williams III _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
