Hebrew verb theories

[Isaac Fried]

He who advocates reading the consonantal text can do it only by actually adding his own imagined vowels, a practice which is leading to notoriously funny readings of the HB. I would strongly counsel against doing that.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Norman said:
NIFAL
*Num 16: 31 (The ground under them split open)

Karl says
Where’s the evidence that this is Niphal? The consonantal text and context says Qal.

Says I
1. This is a very good question: where’s the evidence!.

2. What Norman means is that ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם can be equivalently stated as והאדמה אשר תחתיהם נבקעה The act is בקע BAQA with the beneficiary of the act being the earth under their feet. The causer of this remarkable deed: Destiny.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Karl,

you wrote,

What else would you call it? It’s indicative mood, but secondary, or following-up, to the main clause.

This is probably because my idea of modal is too narrow. I know that we classically call the moods, indicative, subjunctive, conditional, but when I read a linguist using the term modal it seems to me he means largely subjunctive, but not indicative. I do like the term secondary, since follow-up is by definition secondary.

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

I agree with Karl that the forms do not intrinsically express tense or aspect. I agree also that YIQTOLS are largely modal. Karl I never thought of "follow-up indicative" as a type of mood. I don't have a problem with labeling WAYYIQTOL as narratival tense. I know the idea here is to keep it under the umbrella of YIQTOL. But I don't see the need to do so. I see the verbal forms as highly modular. It's this practical modularity that allows the speaker/writer to slot them in the discourse based on the type of discourse.

The virtuous woman passage is a perfect example of this. Now in disagreement to what was said above I do think she is a proverbial woman, although her example may have been based on the writer's experience. I agree with Karl again here, the yiqtol is modal, and should be translated "can find" or "could find." The qatals in the passage express habitual aspect, which is expressed with the present tense form in English. Here the nature of the discourse, being the description of the habits of a virtuous woman, calls for the qatal and is responsible for its habitual meaning. It is imposed by a vertical relationship (discourse). The form itself does not suggest the habitual aspect.

Jonathan E Mohler

Jonathan,
What do you mean by "a vertical relationship"?
The qatals in Prov 31 are habitual, yes. That is interesting. The yiqtols in the chapter do not seem to be clearly habitual, but the wayiqtols are, which supports that view that the wayiqtol acts like a qatal with the additional info that it follows the previous action in time.

The expression vertical relationship comes from Longacre. In his 1978 article, "Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics," he discusses how essential it is to study the context, i.e. the discourse itself. He builds on groundbreaking work by Pike. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiy3c9ozu8plu ... s.pdf?dl=0

Here's his thesis:
"It is not simply that systematic analysis and study of units larger than the sentence is possible, nor even that such analysis is desirable, but rather that discourse analysis is a rock bottom necessity, i.e., all linguistic structure must ultimately be related to the structure of context."

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:
The next verse with both qatal and yiqtol is v14


Why skip v. 13? Because its verb, along with some other verses, is a Wayyiqtol? Did you notice that the Young translation has that as a present tense too, along with verses 15–17? Are all Wayyiqtols in that translation present tense, including the historical narratives?

I skipped v13 because it has no yiqtol. I consider a wayyiqtol different than a yiqtol.


Why? In this chapter both are used the same way, and there are other uses of Wayyiqtol for present and future.

Not so fast. You're ignoring the discourse again. From the discourse level the use of Yiqtol and not Wayyiqtol is noticeable. The writer uses these forms in specific contexts. The Yiqtols are not secondary or contingent actions. All the Wayyiqtols are contingent on the Qatals they follow.

It seems to me that what we are observing in the relationship of these verb form is what I would label contingency. Notice:

v. 10 The Yiqtol יִמְצָ֑א is not contingent on any other verb form.
v. 11 The Qatal בָּ֣טַח creates a contingency, which is filled by the Wayyiqtol לֹ֣א יֶחְסָֽר.
v. 12 The Qatal גְּמָלַ֣תְהוּ is an independent act. (the more I look at this I don't see this as habitual as much as a complete act that looks at her character through the lens of her entire life).
v. 13 The Qatal דָּ֭רְשָׁה - an independent act - The Wayyiqtol וַ֝תַּ֗עַשׂ is contingent on the Qatal it follows. She can't work with her hands with delight if she has not first sought out the wool and the flax. It is akin to saying she has sought out ... in order that she might work... (notice the modal feel). This does not mean it is not habitual or characteristic, it just means that the native speaker feels this kind of phrase modally.
v. 14 Notice תָּבִ֥יא is a Yiqtol, not Wayyiqtol. It is not contingent on the הָ֭יְתָה. In fact the phrases are equal to each other. One is explanatory to the other, but not secondary.
v. 15 Two Wayyiqtols, וַתָּ֤קָם and וַתִּתֵּ֣ן. They are contingent on the Yiqtol of v. 14.
The Hebrew modality is difficult to feel out in English (I find this a very frustrating aspect of English). Translation: She is like merchant ships, such that she should bring her food from afar, then rise early ... and give...
Notice the "then" to convey the sequential nature of the Wayyiqtols.

I'll stop there but this idea of independency-contingency is pretty consistent. It shows the forms are not primarily tense driven, but modally driven.

Jonathan Mohler

[normansimonr]

Okay, since I'm not qualified enough to add to a deep debate yet, I'll transcribe what Waltke and O'Connor (p. 363) have to say about Numbers 16: 31. By the way, the masoretic text reads

וַיְהִי֙ כְּכַלֹּת֔וֹ לְדַבֵּ֕ר אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה וַתִּבָּקַ֥ע הָאֲדָמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּחְתֵּיהֶֽם׃

The Qal and Niphal differ with respect to the role of the subject; the Qal subject is active, as can be seen by comparing Ps. 78: 13 and Num. 16: 31

וַתִּבָּקַ֥ע הָאֲדָמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּחְתֵּיהֶֽם׃ The ground under them split open (Niphal). Num. 16: 31

The Qal example represents the subject as the agent, implicitly answering the question ‘What is God doing?’ The Niphal by contrast answers the question ‘What happened to the ground?’ It does not represent the subject as the actor or agent. It rather represents the subject as having been acted upon by an unstated agent; the subject is merely participating in the action.

I can see a point in Karl's idea that the pointed text can be misleading, especially after reading how the points were created and standardised ( see this and this). If we were to stick to the consonantal text, I think that ancient translations could give some light (Septuagint, Vulgate), but I'm not sure of how much. And another doubt remains: I've read that the masoretes sometimes replaced actual consonants with points, so the reading of the consonantal text might be misleading as well (or not?).

So, from this thread I can make some provisional conclusions (please correct me if I'm wrong):
*Even famous grammarians aren't sure about how the Hebrew verb system works, and there's no unified theory.
*We don't know whether the masoretic text is accurate or not.
*We don't know whether the consonantal text is accurate or not.
*Translation and interpretation depend on the person.

[Isaac Fried]

Norman says
Even famous grammarians aren't sure about how the Hebrew verb system works, and there's no unified theory.
Says I
Not that they are not sure how the system works, but it is rather that they are not sure how to put it in the context of English. You need no theories, read the text and identify for each verb the actors involved and the time frame. With time you will become an expert.

Norman says
We don't know whether the masoretic text is accurate or not.
Says I
There is no such thing as "accurate", since there is no absolute.

Norman says
We don't know whether the consonantal text is accurate or not
Says I
See above. The consonantal text is a free for all to whimsically add vowels. If you wish to edit a "HB according to Norman" you are free to do so.

Norman says
Translation and interpretation depend on the person
Says I
Yes, to a point.

I have looked at the two linked papers: they belong both in the realm of science, or historical, fiction.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

I’ll comment on these three items:

*We don't know whether the masoretic text is accurate or not.

What do you mean by “masoretic text”? Of course the points are not accurate. At least not to Biblical era pronunciation, and all too often not to meaning as well. Also the Qere readings usually give inferior readings to the Kethib.

*We don't know whether the consonantal text is accurate or not.

Of course not, not 100%. There are copyist errors. But given the technology of textual propagation, when looking at differences introduced through copyist errors from over a thousand years, they are remarkably few. Therefore, for practical matters, we have an accurate consonantal text.

*Translation and interpretation depend on the person.

In spades, yes! That’s why Luther in his Sendebrief an den Dolmetscher insisted that to make a Christian translation, the translator must be a Christian. A Jew should be for a Jewish translation. Makes sense.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I'll transcribe what Waltke and O'Connor (p. 363) have to say about Numbers 16: 31.

The Qal and Niphal differ with respect to the role of the subject; the Qal subject is active,…

וַתִּבָּקַ֥ע הָאֲדָמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּחְתֵּיהֶֽם׃ The ground under them split open (Niphal). Num. 16: 31

The Qal example represents the subject as the agent, implicitly answering the question ‘What is God doing?’ The Niphal by contrast answers the question ‘What happened to the ground?’ It does not represent the subject as the actor or agent. It rather represents the subject as having been acted upon by an unstated agent; the subject is merely participating in the action.

Well and good, theoretically and theologically speaking we all know that the earth is not an active agent, able to act on its own. The ancients knew that too. Yet we need to take this verse in context with its following verses 32–34 where the earth is described as if it were the active agent and the verb therefore should be Qal.

So, from this thread I can make some provisional conclusions (please correct me if I'm wrong):
*Even famous grammarians aren't sure about how the Hebrew verb system works, and there's no unified theory.

Or as I said in a previous message: there are no advanced students of Biblical Hebrew language, the best we have are maybe advanced intermediates.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

As certainly many (who read the HB MNUQAD) have noticed, in Num. 16:31 it is וַתִּבָּקַע WA-TI-BAQA, while in Num. 16:31 it is וַתִּבְלַע WA-TI-BLA.

Isaac Fried, Boston University