Code: Select all
Thanks. Great examples. I love good examples. But I still have some questions.
In the statement from Genesis 47:29
וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף
KJV: "And the time drew nigh that Israel must die: and he called his son Joseph"
NIV: "When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called for his son Joseph"
you call וַיִּקְרְבוּ = בא-היא-קרב-הוּא "egressive", but is not the sluggishness of the approach but a pragmatic manifestation of the fact that days don't jump ahead of the line?
I find it interesting that KJV renders the initial WA- as "and", while NIV prefers to translate it as "when".
Is not the next "resultative" example from Jos. 7:6
וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה
KJV: "And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face"
NIV: "Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground"
also pragmatic since to our understanding of "life" Joshua could not tear his garments and fall down at the same time. The order in the narrative reflects the order of events: first tear, then fall. It is also not in the nature of things (the pragma) that falling down on one's face is completed as soon as the forehead hits the ground?I have never seen anyone deny that the stress marks in the MT are based on the recitation of the text in the synagogue. The consequence of this is that the retraction of the stress in wayyiqtols in the narrative texts originally was made by the cantors. The only difference between the wayyiqtol verbs and the weyiqtol verbs is the position of the stress. I have demonstrated that the phonological rules of the Masoretes requires the way-prefix when the stress is retracted. This means that there is no difference between wayyiqtols and weyiqtols except the stress. So the we in the weyiqyol is the same as the way in the wayyiqtol. Both represent the conjunction "and," which can be translated as "while" or as other conjunction, depending on the context.
Hebrew grammars do not show tthat weyiqtols and wayyiqtols are identical, but the wayyiqtols are presented as past tense or the perfective aspect. Please consider two of my previous examples:
1) Jill has reached the peak.
2) Jill is reaching the peak.
Suppose now that we do not know what the parts of the English verb system represent. But we are making a study to find that out. We see that there is a difference between 1) and 2). But we do not know what the difference is. In that case we would not be able to give a correct interpretation of the meaning of the difference between 1) and 2). However, because we know that present participle represents the imperfective aspect and perfect represents the perfective aspect, we interpret 2) to mean that the reaching event was completed. Because we expect to see progressive action somewhere when the imperfective aspect is used, we interpret 1) as “Jill was on the point of reaching the peak.”
The Hebrew student do not at the outset know what the prefix-group (prefix-conjugation) and the suffix-group (suffix conjugation) means. And Hebrew grammars lead the students astray. So what do we need? We need one hundred or more examples showing clearly that the wayyiqtol verbs are imperfective. When I use the verb “clearly” I mean that we need clauses that are transparent, clauses with adverbials, conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions, and other participles showing that the wayyiqtols make visible progressive action, and therefore are imperfective. The context and our knowledge of the world can also help us. But because narratives are constructed as “this happened, and this happened, and this happened,” most of these wayyiqtols are not transparent as to aspect. Therefore we must search for the clear and transparent examples.
If we find one hundred or more examples where the wayyiqtols are imperfective, we know that all the other non-transparent wayyiqtols are imperfective as well. The only way to counter that argument would be to show that there was a grammaticalization process in Hebrew that was not completed. J.A Cook argued in favor of such a grammaticalization process in his doctoral dissertation: The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalization Approach. Ph.D diss. University of Texas, 1999. Regarding such a grammaticalization process, II quote from my forthcoming book, Bible Translation—The Verbal system of Classical Hebrew and the Fallacy of "Prophetic Perfect:
“Grammaticalization means that a word or word form is used in a new way over and over again until it acquires a new meaning. For example, Akkadian and Syriac does not have a definite article. In both languages the demonstrative pronouns are used to mark definiteness, that the article does in Hebrew. Suppose now that a language does not have the definite article, but through time the demonstrative pronoun gradually takes the role of the article, even standing before the substantives. This grammaticalization process gives the demonstrative the function of an article. However, the grammaticalization process occurs over a long period of time before the process at last is complete. Applied to imperfect consecutive, we can think that this form is used over and over again with the meaning “past tense” or "completed action." But the process has not yet reached its end. This could account for the 997 examples with non-past reference, several hundred of which have imperfective characteristics.
However, a grammaticalization process cannot only be postulated, but it must also be demonstrated. In order to show that a grammaticalization process was ongoing in connection with consecutive imperfect (wayyiqtol), one must show that the form is used differently in the books of the Hebrew Bible, from the oldest to the youngest books. But Cook and other scholars have not been able to do that. To, the contrary, there is no difference in the use of imperfect consecutive in the older books compared with the younger ones. But the use is exactly the same in all the Hebrew books. I also show in my dissertation that imperfect consecutive is used in exactly the same way in the DSS and in Ben Sira as it is in the Hebrew Bible. This means that a grammaticalization process is excluded, and the 997 non-past examples of wayyiqtol exclude the past tense-interpretation of imperfect consecutive.”
Then to your questions: Genesis 47:29
וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף
You are right that this example is not fully transparent as to its egressive force. But still there are good reasons to take it as an egressive example. Neither KJV nor NIV have translated literally. Both translations use “time” instead of “days.” To say that “When the time (singular) drew near,” for an instantaneous event (death) gives good meaning. But to say “When the days (singular) drew near for Israel to die,” does not make good sense. Israel did not die during several days, but he died on one day. So the rendering “When the days drew near for Israel to die,” is unnatural. What was drawing near was his death, and what caused the drawing near of his death was that one day followed the other in his old age. The “days” is the subject of the verb “to draw near," and because the subject is plural, a progressive process must be described. A description of such a process is imperfective. I will drop the word “gradually” in my translation. A literal translation will be. “The days were approaching for Israel to die,” and this translation is egressive.
The other passage is Joshua 7:6
וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה
This passage is fully transparent and clearly shows a resultative situation. You are correct when you say that there is a sequence of events, first tear, then fall. But please note that these two events are expressed by two wayyiqtols. My focus is on the second wayyiqtol, and what makes the resultative force transparent is the adverbial עַד־הָעֶ֔רֶב (until the evening). The verb covers the period from his fall until he raised again, and the focus is on the resultant state.
This is a good example of the problem I mentioned before that few wayyiqtols are transparent. But in this case there is an adverbial that makes the resultative force clear. A similar example is found in Joshua 7:26,
וַיָּקִ֨ימוּ עָלָ֜יו גַּל־אֲבָנִ֣ים גָּד֗וֹל עַ֚ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה
"And they raised a large heap of stones over him until this day."
The adverbial עַד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה shows that the result of the heaping up lasted for a very long time, and the focus is on this time.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway