Dear Jonathan, Your analogy between English and Swahili stresses the important point that we at the outset do not know what a language is like. If we have preconceived ideas about what a dead language should look like, that can prevent us from making a balanced analysis of the dead language. Take for example narratives. The default narrative verb in many languages is either simple past or perfective. What do we see in the Semitic languages?
Akkadian: the short prefix form IPRUS is the default form. This form can also be used for present and future, and the longer prefix form, IPARRAS, can be used with past reference. Aramaic (Daniel) QATAL (281 with past reference) is the default form, but YIQTOL (178 with past reference) is also extensively used. Ugaritic: YAQTUL is the default form. This form is also extensively used with future reference. Ethiopic: NAGARA (suffix form) is the default form; this form can also refer to present and future. YENAGGER (note that this is the long prefix form) can also be used for the past. The short prefix form, YINGER, is often modal. Phoenician (Karatepe inscription): Infinitive absolute is the default form; QATAL is also to some extent used. Hebrew: WAYYIQTOL. (13,539 with past reference) is the default form, but QATAL (7,446 with past reference) is also extensively used. YIQTOL (1,027 with past reference) is also used. We see that the default narrative form of Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Hebrew is the prefix form, whereas the default form in Aramaic and Ethiopic is the suffix form. In Phoenician the default form is infinitive absolute. In Akkadian there is no suffix form, but there is a form with and infix, the perfect. There is not a clear pattern in these languages, and the fact that both prefix forms and suffix forms can have past, present, and future reference, suggests that we should not force an Indo-European or Slavic model upon a dead Semitic language. This means that we cannot conclude that the WAYYIQTOL is either preterit or perfective, because this is the case in so many languages. In fact, there is no compelling reason why the WAYYIQTOL cannot be imperfective. A careful and extensive study is needed to find the true nature of the ver forms. I see that you study at a Baptist Bible school. That reminds me of interesting events that happened at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1940s and 1950s: Three dissertations which were critical to the traditional view of WAYYIQTOL were published in the course of twelve years: L. Eddlemann, "Waw consecutive and the Consecution of Tenses as Reflected by Eight Century Hebrew," 1943. J.J. Curtis, "An Application of the Syntax of Hebrew Verbs to the Writings of Amos," 1949. B.E. Scoggin, "Application of Hebrew Verb States to a Translation of Isaiah 40-45," 1955. These dissertations are still worth reading. The same is true with the grammar of J.W. Watts, "A Survey of the Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament," 1951, 1964, which argues along the same lines. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Torsdag 30. Mai 2013 23:10 CEST skrev Jonathan Mohler <[email protected]>: > Thanks, Rolf, John and Isaac. > > I will use the word subjunctive to refer to the form of the verb. > I want to contribute to the wayyiqtol/aspect thread by way of analogy. I > preface "by analogy" because some might object to me bringing in an example > from a non semitic language. > > setup: > In Swahili, the indicative mood is marked by the suffix -a. The subjunctive > mood is marked by the suffix -e. > Indicative verbs take tense affixes, while subjunctive verbs are tenseless. > The subjunctive can function as a cohortative, a jussive, a softened > imperative, and like John's Ar. examples must follow particles that call for > potentiality, and volition. > Indicative— ni-li-end-a, I went > 1s-past-go-ind > > Subjunctive— ni-end-e, let me go (cohortative) 1s-go-subj > u-end-e, go (softened imperative) 2s-go-subj > a-end-e, let him go (jussive) 3s-go-subj > mpaka aende, until he goes > ili aende, in order that he go > nataka uende, I want you to go > > argument (by analogy): > > In Matt. 21:28-32, Jesus tells the parable of the father who bid his two sons > to work in the field. One son said he would, but he didn't go; his brother > said he wouldn't, but changed his mind and went. In the English phrase "he > didn't go," "go" is indicative, In Swahili it is a subjunctive a-si-end-e, > 3s-neg-go-subj. Swahili speakers, for reasons I have yet to determine, > choose a subjunctive, even though an indicative is available, and would be > grammatical. > > What prompted this in my mind was Ruth's comment that qatals and yiqtols are > different, and for some reason the author of Prov. 31 has chosen to follow > the qatal with a yiqtol. In the native speakers mind a yiqtol is still a > yiqtol, as the subjunctive, in my Swahili mind, is still a subjunctive in > cases such as above. I would still translate it "he didn't go." > > Jonathan E. Mohler > Baptist Bible Graduate School > Springfield, Missouri, US > On May 30, 2013, at 3:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
