Dear George, Thank you for your other post today when you clearly expressed how you defined each verbal form.
In this post you are in my opinion both right and wrong. I heartily agree that we cannot isolate Hebrew from other Semitic languages. There are many similarities between the Semitic languages, but there are differences as well. And we do not know if and how one language influenced another language. Moreover, languages change over time, and if there was an influence, what was the language like at the time of the influence. I use an example in relation definiteness/indefiniteness: A substantive in the determined state (some call the ending of the substantive "the definite article") of Biblical Aramaic is always definite. But a substantive in the determined state in Syriac can be either definite or indefinite. The Aramaic of Daniel is Imperial Aramaic, so the time between the two languages is 400-500 years or less. If the late date of Daniel is used, the time can be less than one hundred years. Let us now make a comparison of the conjugations: HEBREW: Prefix: YIQTOL, suffix: QATAL, consecutive: (WAYYIQTOL, WEQATAL), imperative: QEBOR AKKADIAN: Prefix "preterit": IPRUS, prefix "present":IPARRAS, perfect: IPTARAS, and stative:PARIS, imperative:PURUS UGARITIC: Prefix: YQTL, suffix: QTL, imperative: QTL PHOENICIAN: Prefix: YQTL, Suffix: QTL, Imperativ QTL ARABIC: Prefix: YAQTULU, Suffix: QATALA, Imperative: 'UQTUL ETHIOPIC; Prefix "present": YEQATTEL, Prefix: "subjunctive" YEQTEL, Suffix: QATALA, Imperative: QEBER SYRIAC: Prefix: NEQBOR, Suffix: QEBAR, imperative: QEBOR All the languages have one prefix form and one suffix form. Akkadian has two prefix forms. The long one in most cases refer to present and future, and the short one in most cases refer to the past. But both forms can refer to past, present, and future. It is believed that Ugaritic has a short prefix form, QATUL, with past reference, and a long prefix form, YAQTULU, with present/future reference. The problem is that Ugaritic has no vowels, except in connection with alef, so this view may or may not be correct. Ethiopic has one short prefix form, which often is modal, but can be indicative. It also has a long prefix form. Hebrew, Ethiopic and Ugaritic suffix forms can have future reference. The basic differences between the verbal systems are that Akkadian has two conjugations more than the other languages, and that Hebrew is supposed to have two conjugations more than the other languages. But the extra conjugations in Akkadian and Hebrew are different. There can be no doubt that Hebrew WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL are exceptional compared with the other Semitic languages. So my question is: From where did the two forms come, and how can we draw lines between the antecedent of the Hebrew forms? Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway. Tirsdag 28. Mai 2013 12:45 CEST skrev George Athas <[email protected]>: > Rolf, > > I think you have created a false dichotomy when you say "we cannot interpret > Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to analyze Biblical > Hebrew according to its own standards." > > Biblical Hebrew is a Semitic language, which means its related to other > Semitic languages. This doesn't mean it has no distinction from other Semitic > languages. The fact that we can label Biblical Hebrew (and even there, we > have two or three different types) means it has its distinctives. However, to > treat Biblical Hebrew in isolation from other languages means we are not > treating it as a Semitic language. We need to strike the balance. You can't > just look at Hebrew and not at its close relatives, because that would not be > treating Hebrew as Hebrew. It would be treating it as something else. And > that, I believe, is one of the methodological flaws in your and Karl's > respective approaches. You look only at Hebrew, and do not appreciate its > distinctives in light of its similarities to its genetically related > languages. > > Cheers! > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) > Sydney, Australia > > From: Rolf <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 8:28 PM > To: B-Hebrew <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to rolf > > Dear Karl, > > You have made several good points. I agree, contrary to George, that we > cannot interpret Hebrew verbs in the light of other languages, and we need to > analyze Biblical Hebrew according to its own standards. But here is the > problem. We cannot start with "cogito ergo sum," as did Descartes, but any > study must build on auxiliary hypotheses (cf. Duhem/Quine thesis). This means > that we must build on the works of others, and the conclusions they have > drawn. As for the Hebrew verbal system, there are too many auxiliary > hypotheses, and too many different definitions. Therefore most students of > Hebrew, including many scholars, are just parroting what others have said. I > disagree with George, but I know that he for many years have wrestled with > Hebrew verbs, and his system is a novel system that differs from others. > > From my early student days, I have sought a way to reduce the auxiliary > hypotheses (or assumptions), and to avoid to start with a definition of > aspect (more than twenty different definitions exist)—if we start with a > definition, we are bound, and in a way we have violated the basic scientific > principle: "If the conclusions of a study is given before the study starts, > the study is not scientific." As for me, my study builds on four assumptions, > 1) the Masoretic texts represents the the text of the Tanakh in the time BCE > (text critical matters are of course considered), 2) a study of all the > verbs of the Masoretic text will show the function and possibly the meaning > of the Hebrew verbal system in the time BCE, 3) tense -not temporal > reference) is grammaticalization of location in time, and 4) Hebrew, as any > other language, can be analyzed by the parameters event time, reference time, > and the deictic center. I think that most Hebrew scholars agree with 1) and > 2), and most linguists agree with 3) and 4). > > The advantage of the parameters mentioned in 3), is that by using them we can > show whether a language has tenses (semantic meaning) or only temporal > reference that must be seen from the context (conversational pragmatic > implicature). Further, these parameters can be used to find if a language has > aspects, and to describe the nature of these aspects (six basic differences > between the aspects in the languages of the world can be pinpointed). Thus, > the nature of the Hebrew aspects can be described without starting with a > particular definition. > > I started with a study of tense/temporal reference. When the tense is past, > reference time (RT) comes before the deictic center (C), when it is future, > RT comes after C, and when the reference is present, RT and C coincides. An > analysis of ALL the verbs of Classical Hebrew gave the result that all verb > forms can be used with past, future and present reference. Therefore, Hebrew > does not have tenses. > > It is not true that I have limited myself to a study of tense, because tense > plays only a minor part in my dissertation. As a matter of fact, aspect both > can and MUST be studied apart from tense. Aspect is non-deictic, and the > relationship between event time and reference time, which expresses the > aspect, does not say anything about tense. When reference time intersects > event time and a part of event time is made visible, there are differences in > three respects, 1) the angle of intersection (before or at the beginning, in > the middle, immediately before the end, and after the end), the breadth of > the intersection (Is the whole event time or a small of big part of it made > visible), and 3) the quality of the intersection (are details made visible or > not). Because there are two aspects, six differences can be measured, and > this has nothing to do with tense. Most of my dissertation deals with > aspectual matters, and it is shown that the the relationship between event > time and reference time is uniform in YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL, and it > is uniform in QATAL and WEQATAL. However, most scholars do not accept this, > and in their models temporal references are important. Therefore, it has to a > rather great extent ben necessary for me to discuss the temporal references > of the verbs in order to compare my model to other models. > > Best regards, > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > Mandag 27. Mai 2013 13:57 CEST skrev K Randolph > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: > George: > > Rolf has done the study with greater granularity, statistical analysis, > better knowledge of linguistics and scholarly literature, but it appears > that he limited himself to tense. What I notice is that the Yiqtol /> > Wayyiqtol applies to a greater range of moods than does Qatal, in fact is > often a marker that another mood applies, but that’s not its main use. > I read the text first of all to analyse, what does it mean? No, not the > subjective “What does it mean to me?” rather what does it mean objectively? > That’s where all that I was taught about the Biblical Hebrew verb fell > apart: tense, aspect, definite/indefinite, none of those could be > consistently applied to the whole text. > Do we go with models, or with data? > Yours, Karl W. Randolph. > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, George Athas > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: > > Karl, > > > > I disagree with your perception that qatal and yiqtol have the same > > definiteness. See my response to Rolf in this thread. > > > > > > *GEORGE ATHAS* > > *Dean of Research,* > > *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au) > > *Sydney, Australia* > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
