Seeking clarifiaction - The Prefixed Vav - Posted 2019

[Jason Hare]

Question 1 ---- Hallo Jason, based on these two comments why do I see hundreds of Imperfect short forms with a vav (patach underneath) with the heh dropped (Even-Shoshan's dictionary) and yet clearly they are not jussives but simply imperfects expressing an ordinary action? Just take one for example : Gen 1:7 וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ ; So that is the reason why I see no difficulty with 1 Sam 2:6 being a normal Imperfect, despite it being a narration where there is reported speech. I do not deny the possibility of it being a jussive, a subjunctive mood but it does not have to be right? Or am I completely wrong in my opinion here?

Yes, completely wrong. The vayyiqtol is formed by attaching va- with dagesh forte onto the jussive form. This is the regular narrative past form. Therefore, וַיִּבְרָא “he created,” וַיַּ֫עַשׂ “he did/made,” וַיַּ֫עַל “he went up,” et cetera. The actual jussive would be the difference between וַיַּ֫עַשׂ vayyáʿaś (a vayyiqtol form) and וְיַ֫עַשׂ vəyáʿaś (conjunctive vav with jussive). You see the difference at the beginning of the word, no? The veyiqtol (vav with jussive) would be וְיִבְרָא vəyiḇrāʾ “and he would/should create” or “may he create,” וְיַ֫עַשׂ vəyáʿaś “and may he do/make,” וְיַ֫עַל vəyáʿal “and may he go up,” etc.

Questions 2 ---- Interesting in Ruth 1:8. For the first time that I remember, I have to disagree with the Qeri reading here. Placing myself in this sort of situation, I can easily imagine Ruth encouraging with a sort of absolute certainty that Naomi would be blessed by God, rather than leaving Naomi with any possibility of doubt that God would not bless her. I also feel that the Qeri is a result of a Tiberian Scribe feeling more inclined to adopt a religious and customary grammar to this situation rather than considering that Ruth actually KNEW and believed with certainty that God would bless Naomi. There is so much to say to counter the Scribe's belief that the Ketiv is inappropriate, that I see no justification for questioning the Ketiv reading.
יעשה (יַ֣עַשׂ) יְהוָ֤ה עִמָּכֶם֙ חֶ֔סֶד כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר עֲשִׂיתֶ֛ם עִם־הַמֵּתִ֖ים וְעִמָּדִֽי׃

If you think that the jussive calls the statement into account, then you are reading information into the jussive that is not there. This should pretty clearly be a jussive in Ruth 1:8.

What textbook did you cover for elementary grammar again? I might be able to reference you to some reading in whichever textbook you have.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason,

1. I am drowning in a sea of dots, dashes and yiktols. Ok, to make it more practical for my ears, if I understand this now, when the imperfect form is shortened and the narrative conveys: "I make or have made", it comes basically with a dagesh forte and a patach under the vav. If the narrative wishes to convey "May he make or may I make", it comes with a shewa under the vav and no dagesh forte. Is this the general view allowing of course for certain letters that can not take a dagesh?

2. This begs the question: Is there any reason why writers might shorten an imperfect and obviously not mean to convey the 'Wish or desire' aspect of a sentence? I refer this question only about narratives, and not the poetical books or poetical literature found in a narrative sometimes.

3. Regards Ruth 1:8 BIG BIG Humongous mistake I made, I kept writing Naomi when I meant both Orpha and Ruth, the daughters in law. Wow, embarrassing.

If you think that the jussive calls the statement into account, then you are reading information into the jussive that is not there. This should pretty clearly be a jussive in Ruth 1:8.

Hi Jason, having humiliated myself, may I now say the following: i did not read anything into the jussive because I did not read a jussive in the first place. I saw the imperfect and translated it as Naomi expressing a certainty rather than a customary : I wish and hope the Lord's blessing upon you. Now I ask the question, why did the scribe who copied the original see fit to change the imperfect feeling of Naomi's certainty into a wishful desire. For me, I would express the wishful desire as a sort of polite gesture to someone I hardly knew, or to someone that I knew but was not close to (I am of course referring only to this sort of context where there are emotions sweeping tearfully across the desert). Naomi's situation at that moment was one of extreme emotional upheaval coupled with a strong conviction that God would most certainly bless her two daughters-in-law for all their kindness and support during these days. So why does everyone want to change this into a jussive?

4. Grammar. I use an old and reliable Gesenius; Page H Kelly's books; and Van de Mauwe kreuze and Naude's reference grammar; unfortunately, before I posted to you I did as wide a search as possible to find any information on the Jussive, I was looking for exactly the sort of information you mentioned. Unfortunately, these books seem to make scant reference to the Jussive mentioning only the obvious - about what it means and the fact that it is shortened - which I already knew. However Gesenius, which I reference when wanting absolute details (Van de Merwe's grammar is not good on detail), even Gesenius stated the obvious, I could find nothing where he might mention the Shewa and the patach and the difference between the two shortened imperfects when used in narrative. All this means is that I could not find anything, and even You tube turned up the basics without talking about the shewa and vavs and patach etc etc. Hence what I thought that I had understood turned out to be a nightmarish misunderstanding. Nothing knew in that department!

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

And I have come to the conclusion that Ralf Furuli should be ignored when it comes to Hebrew. He tries to analyze the language without having a sense for it as a language. I was convinced of this while interacting with him on the meaning of סָבִיב here on this very forum when he was defending an absurd translation choice of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If he makes such absurd claims about a standard Hebrew word, I cannot accept other claims based on his status as a Hebrew scholar.

Jason:

You trash Dr. Rolf Furuli. Chris Watts’ question is based on a conclusion based on Dr. Furuli’s research for his PhD dissertation. His dissertation was accepted and he successfully defended it in committee, hence he received his PhD.

One thing I’ve noticed about Biblical Hebrew studies is that those who do so, most start with a certain framework then study individual verses, or even individual words, in isolation. They don’t start with reading the total context. For example, there are times when asked a question in Job, maybe verse 20 in a chapter, I found myself starting at verse 1 of the chapter, then reading beyond the verse in question, in order to get sufficient context for me to propose an answer to the question. How many professors read the whole Tanakh in order to get context for their studies? My criticism of Dr. Furuli is that it appears that he built his statistical models based on thousands of individual examples, the same way most Hebrew studies are done.

Why should I trust your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew when you are still teaching according to Weingreen? When I studied Hebrew in class, Weingreen was the text used. But when I read Tanakh, the text contradicts Weingreen in so many places that I learned that I can’t trust Weingreen. In the narrative books, Weingreen’s grammar seems to work. But when I got to Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophetic books, Psalms, Job and the other poetic books, Weingreen’s grammar started sounding more like gibberish. Weingreen based his teaching on medieval Hebrew. But Tanakh uses Hebrew according to a different grammar.

I mentioned Dr. Furuli and his conclusions on the meaning of the conjugations, and Dr. Diethelm Michel on his proposed grammar, neither of whom I knew when I started reading Tanakh. I came to much of the same conclusions based on my reading of Tanakh independent of these two professors. I give them the credit because they did the formal studies to come to their conclusions, I merely read the text.

Karl W, Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

You can easily go to my YouTube live streams and see that I read through the Hebrew Bible. I’m not hiding anything. You defend Furuli while you trash everyone else in the field, so you are in not place to shoot off criticisms about such things. I teach from Weingreen’s grammar and am very clear with anyone who listens about where I disagree with what he has to say. You, on the other hand, deal in nebulous rejectionism. I don’t care if Furuli defended a thesis. His ideas are bad. There are plenty of PhD’s out there with bad ideas. Do you really agree with everyone who has a PhD in Hebrew language? Really? Or, are you only making such a ridiculous argument for your pet doctor?

[kwrandolph]

…
Here is the relevant part of Muraoka-Joüon’s grammar (§110h–n):
… (No need to quote the whole thing)

2 According to GKC, §109k, these jussives are due to consideration of rhythm (?). About the form יוֹסֵף as indicative, cf. §75f.[/indent]

While it’s true that the yiqtol itself often expresses modality, the jussive is specifically a modal entity.

I don’t think I’d let my decisions rest on a commentary from 1913, even if by Driver. The jussive reading seems pretty solid to me.

This whole description is such a mess that it appears that the jussive is determined by translation, rather than anything that is intrinsic in the Hebrew language itself. Of course, I don’t take the Masoretic points as authoritative. There’s no indication in the consonantal text. In other words, if you want to call something a jussive, then it’s a jussive. Don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

This whole description is such a mess that it appears that the jussive is determined by translation, rather than anything that is intrinsic in the Hebrew language itself. Of course, I don’t take the Masoretic points as authoritative. There’s no indication in the consonantal text. In other words, if you want to call something a jussive, then it’s a jussive. Don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

I don’t care what you agree or disagree with. You aren’t my source for Hebrew information. But, I appreciate you giving out your unsolicited and unwarranted opinion.

[kwrandolph]

You can easily go to my YouTube live streams and see that I read through the Hebrew Bible.

Your live stream exactly fits my criticism of most teaching of Biblical Hebrew to which I have been exposed.

You defend Furuli while you trash everyone else in the field,

Oh? Evidence?

I teach from Weingreen’s grammar and am very clear with anyone who listens about where I disagree with what he has to say. You, on the other hand, deal in nebulous rejectionism.,

There’s so much wrong with Weingreen that it’s hard to decide where to begin.

I don’t care if Furuli defended a thesis. His ideas are bad.

Talk about “nebulous rejectionism”!

Have you done a lick of original research into the Biblical Hebrew language? Where’s the evidence?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

I teach from Weingreen’s grammar and am very clear with anyone who listens about where I disagree with what he has to say. You, on the other hand, deal in nebulous rejectionism.,

There’s so much wrong with Weingreen that it’s hard to decide where to begin.

Karl W. Randolph.

I don't know Karl, as much as I respect the knowledge you appear to have, and as much as I find other grammarians more conducive to my brain in that I do avoid weingreen, (and others), I feel impassioned to counter your argument in many ways but do not know how. May I just then point you to this, one of many sites, this one in particular. https://www.dib.ie/biography/weingreen-jacob-a8954 Did you know he worked in Bergen-Belsen in 1945? and that he had very good relations with Jews and Rabbis?
His very life was so full and very very different from a lot of coffee sipping university lounge-chair hebraists that I have to conclude that I would take him seriously, and not as someone whose hebrew is to be trashed.

PS; I am not against sipping coffee in a lounge chair with a professor of Hebrew

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

I don't know Karl, as much as I respect the knowledge you appear to have

I admire the weight that this word is forced to carry.

[kwrandolph]

I don't know Karl, as much as I respect the knowledge you appear to have, and as much as I find other grammarians more conducive to my brain in that I do avoid weingreen, (and others), I feel impassioned to counter your argument in many ways but do not know how. May I just then point you to this, one of many sites, this one in particular. https://www.dib.ie/biography/weingreen-jacob-a8954 Did you know he worked in Bergen-Belsen in 1945? and that he had very good relations with Jews and Rabbis?
His very life was so full and very very different from a lot of coffee sipping university lounge-chair hebraists that I have to conclude that I would take him seriously, and not as someone whose hebrew is to be trashed.

PS; I am not against sipping coffee in a lounge chair with a professor of Hebrew

Chris watts

I have nothing for or against Weingreen as a person. In fact, before reading the bibliography, I knew nothing about his life. And I don’t “trash” his work, I just disagree with him.

However, my criticism starts with that he “…demonstrated the strong elements of continuity which bound the Hebrew Bible into an ongoing tradition of what were understood as rabbinic modes of interpretation;…” In other words, even his understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar was colored by “rabbinic modes of interpretation”. What he failed to recognize is that the language used by the rabbis was no longer the same language written up in Tanakh. Which makes me wonder, how much did he know Tanakh? (Answer now unknowable.)

My starting point is that of a linguist, not a theologian. I apply the same rules to understanding the language as I apply to understanding German or Chinese, or any other language. I decided to read Tanakh front to back, starting in Genesis and ending at 2 Chronicles. Then I started over again. I initially tried reading according to the lessons I learned in class, using Weingreen. The results didn’t make linguistic sense. I tried other teachers, with the same results. So I decided to read Tanakh over and over again, letting the language flow over me in the same manner as a child learning his first language. In the process I also learned that the rabbinic points are often in error.

Is my learning perfect? I invite others to evaluate what I wrote and suggest criticisms and corrections. Nebulous rejectionism doesn’t count.

Karl W. Randolph.