Hi Karl,
On Sep 10, 2013, at 5:19 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> Johathan:
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Mohler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> …
>
> 1. Prov. 31:1-31, as a whole, is gnomic. the evidence here seems to indicate
> that the Qatal verb forms carry the mainline, and thus are the principal
> carriers of gnomicity. In other words, the gnomicity is the overriding
> feature of each of these Qatal verb forms. If these Qatals were coded to
> Tense, it would be irrelevant. In fact, I see them, at least in this
> passage, as tenseless.
>
> 2. The other verb forms then are off-line, in the sense that their role is
> not to carry the Aspect of gnomicity; instead, they seem to be mostly modal,
> again, tenseless. To use Karl's language, when I read a passage of BH, I
> tend to feel a yiqtol and wayyiqtol as conveying mood, not tense.
>
> How is the mood communicated by the Qatal and Yiqtol different in the passage
> of verses 11–31?
I am saying that since the discourse is gnomic as a whole, that the Qatal's are
slotted to carry the mainline of the discourse. All other forms are
supportive. By extension, in their relationship to their main verb, they are
part of the gnomic aspect of the sentence, but the primary function of these
non-Qatals is to convey something like a subjunctive mood. I don't believe the
native speaker saw these as interchangeable forms, instead, they must be in
contrast.
>
> Example: the first yiqtol is modal. It is properly translated as "can find"
> not as "finds" or "will find."
>
> This is verse 10, where I think the Yiqtol is model, indicating a subjunctive
> mood.
Yes, and BH writers/speaker NEVER choose a qatal to function as a subjunctive.
Thus, Qatal and Yiqtol are in contrast by default in the mind of the native
speaker.
> But all the following verbs carry the indicative modality, hence modality is
> only sometimes a reason for the different conjugations.
I disagree. I think you are imposing your English paradigm on BH. If you are
correct, in that we shouldn't impose TAM on BH, then why are you imposing
English habitual on BH. Moreover, I do not see Characteristic/habitual as
Present Continuous at all. There is no real time reference in them. Just
because the early bird catches the worm, doesn't imply that he is catching one
NOW, or that he caught yesterday, or that he will catch one in the morning.
English speakers are confusing present continuous with Characteristic/habitual,
only because they slot the Present Tense/Indicative verb form into the habitual
slot.
If Qatal and Yiqtol forms are in contrast, we must look at it another way, even
if we are limited by an English paradigm.
>
> 3. Let me make a distinction. The PASSAGE is tenseless. I think this is
> where I depart from Rolf, maybe only in respect to how I see this passage.
> Rolf, I don't see qatals and yiqtols as exchanging tenses at will (how I
> interpret you, please correct me if I'm off.)
> Karl, I do not believe this particular passage is in the present tense. The
> passage is aspective, not tensed (as in Ruth's "the early bird catches the
> worm."
>
> The passage, verses 11–31, as a whole is imperfective aspect, in that the
> whole passage refers to repeated or habitual actions in both Qatal and Yiqtol
> verbs.
I contend that the Qatals carry the habitual, while the yiqtol and wayyiqtols
add support by offering something additional, such as subjunctive mood, usually
functioning as purpose. The yiqtols and wayyiqtols are habitual, only in that
they are tied to what I call the mainline verb form, Qatal. But the modal
character of these forms trumps the aspectual. In other words, the Qatals are
aspective, while the other forms are both aspective and modal. Does that sound
better?
> That’s why I claim that within this passage Biblical Hebrew does not
> conjugate for aspect.
I have no problem with this at this point. I am looking at this from a
discourse analysis point of view, a top down perspective, where the overall
structure dictates how the individual verb forms are to be used.
>
> Besides this passage, I notice that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for
> aspect—it’s just that this passage is so clear that there’s no conjugation
> for tense nor aspect that it can be used as an example.
>
> A native English speaker, slots the gnomic aspect with the Present form; in
> my judgment, that doesn't mean it is in the present tense. It is simply
> CHARACTERISTIC or HABITUAL. I think, Karl, I believe I am letting the text
> speak, as you suggest, and am not imposing an outside model, although I am
> influenced by Robert Longacre's Text-Linguistic/tagmemic approach.
>
> Let’s consider Ruth’s example, “Listen (imperative) to my thinking (gerund)
> about the ideal wife. She would be (some sort of modal) someone who always
> makes your life good (present). She studied (simple past) hard at school,
> and she encourages (present) her children to do (infinitive) the same.
1. encourages: the characteristic/habitual aspect trumps the tensual form. In
fact, as an unqualified form the simple present conjugation in English seems to
be encoded primarily for aspect, not tense. when one uses the simple present
tense form, one must qualify it with contextual material in order to make clear
that there is an actual present time reference.
E. g.: "I brew beer." Without qualification, the general perception of an
English native is that I brew beer for a living, or as a hobby. If I want to
express real present time reference, I have to choose the Present Continuous,
"I am brewing beer." Now the hearer knows that my action is in the actual
present.
Notice it is just the opposite with Simple Past. An unqualified simple past
clause is tensual; one must qualify it in order to make it aspectual. read "I
walked" vs "I walked to school last semester" In other words, the verb form is
encoded primarily for tense.
2. to do. To use an infinitive to carry a volitive sense is very English, very
modern in fact. None of the other languages I speak do this. Both French and
Swahili would call for a Subjunctive. "I encourage that you should do" of
course totally clumsy in English; but recall the mob goon who pipes at his mob
boss saying "hey Boss, you want I should off him." A modern native American
would never use a subjunctive, but would use the infinitive: "hey boss, you
want me to off him." (this is an argument I will use again when answering Rolf)
> She's always helping (present continuous) other people. Once you have
> married (perfect) her, you will never regret it (future).” In English, the
> gnomic use doesn’t necessarily refer to the present. But for the discussion
> here, I notice that all the actions in Proverbs 31:11–31 do refer to present,
> repeated actions, none to actions in the past nor the future. Or to put it in
> more technical terms, the time deixis for all the verbs is contemporaneous to
> the description.
I like this last line!
>
> 4. It seems to me that the native BH speaker felt the sequential verb forms
> as modal, even though English versions flatten both verb forms to gnomic.
> Why? maybe the translators thought it seemed lighter and more accessible to
> the English ear.
>
> Example: "She looks (qatal) for wool and flax; and works (wayyiqtol) with
> her hands in delight." NASB v13
>
> I see all the verbs in this passage, verses 11–31, as indicative modality.
Just my point, I don't! The translated verbs maybe, but that is due to the
Modern English paradigm, which tends to flatten every verb out. Modern
English, especially American shuns subjunctive usage, exactly in those
situation where most languages call for a modal form.
"I hide your word in my heart, so I won't sin against you"
Most languages are still quite at home with the BH feeling:
"Your word, I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against you"
>
> More in line with what a BH writer/speaker probably felt:
>
> "She rises (aspect) also . . . that she may give (mood) food to her household"
>
> Why do you mention aspect in this verse? How is it different from the passage
> as a whole?
>
> How is the second Yiqtol in this verse different from the first one, that you
> treat it differently?
Apologies, I corrected this below
>
> 5. The fronted wayyiqtol in verse 15 tells us that v14 and v15 are a unit
>
> Agreed.
>
> 14 She is like merchant ships: she brings food from afar
> 15 She rises also while it is night
> And gives food to her household;
> And portions to her maidens
> NASB
>
> better:
>
> she is like merchant ships:
> she brings (qatal/gnomic) food from afar
>
> This second verb in verse 14 is Yiqtol, not Qatal.
I know but as per my last paragraph above, I am contending that though we may
be forced to translate this Yiqtol as a flat verb, it is not flat in the ear of
the native BH. Although, there may be more to this verse than at first glance:
the use of HAYITAH rather than ellipsis may be a clue. But for whatever reason,
the Qatal form of HAYITAH is calling for the following form to be Yiqtol. I
don't need to flatten the Yiqtol in order to make it work in my English mind.
I think I am actually in line with your idea that BH should be allowed to
provide us with its own verb paradigm/model.
>
> that she may rise (wayyiqtol/modal) while it is night
> and give(wayyiqtol/modal) food to her household,
> and portions to her maidens
>
> Mmmmmm … could be read that way, I hadn’t considered that reading. I’d leave
> out the “may”. It’s still present tense, imperfective aspect as referring to
> contemporaneous, repeated actions.
>
> 6. Exegetically this model seems to be much more fruitful
>
> Can you apply that model approach to all the verses in this passage? I can’t.
This sounds like a fun challenge. Of course, I am just theorizing, and trying
to add my multi-lingual perspective to the argument.
>
> Jonathan E Mohler
> Graduate Student
> Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
> Springfield, MO
>
> It looks like you were thinking through your fingers as you wrote this
> message.
Of course, it is a dialogue after all. ;-)
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
Jonathan E. Mohler
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
