gmane.culture.language.b-hebrew

Re: to rolf

K Randolph — 2013-05-25T19:34:08

George:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:19 AM, George Athas <George.Athas-xqH2VCEdmGXfbukzYdBW+w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:


Yes, but the same can be said of Qatal in its uses. Since the same can be
said of Qatal, how do you differentiate between Qatal and Yiqtol?


This is why I keep emphasizing that translation is not the same as
understanding within a language.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf

K Randolph — 2013-05-25T19:09:18

Rolf:

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli-SPxFvlzjh2duMpJDpNschA< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:


When one reads this passage as a whole, through verse 31, it’s present
tense, imperfective aspect, indicative mood. That means that all but one of
the conjugations in their contexts reference the same tense, aspect and
mood. That shows that these conjugations also don’t indicate aspect nor
mood either.

When read without points and including the verbless phrases, the breakdown
becomes clearer: this passage can be read as containing 20 Qatals, 18
Yiqtols (I didn’t make a differentiation between Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol), two
participles used as nouns, one imperative, and six verbless clauses. If we
count the participles as nouns, then there are eight verbless clauses.


I don’t understand this paragraph in reference to
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAspect.htm.

In Proverbs 31:10–31, the verbs are all present tense, imperfective aspect,
so there’s no differenc

Re: to rolf

George Athas — 2013-05-25T08:19:24

Rolf asked:


First, I don't see wayyiqtol as indicating past tense at all. It is actually a 'live action' verb. However, the past tense of yiqtol is merely a product of thinking in terms of European languages. The yiqtol itself indicates indefinite action, whether past, present, or future. Tense is in no way encoded within the verb. Iterative actions in the past (eg. 'he used to kill') or actions that have not been actualised (eg. 'he will kill' or 'he might kill') or actions that are generally true at all time ('gnomic', eg. 'he kills—it's just what he does') are all within the indefinite nature of the yiqtol. Sometimes this is referred to as modus irrealis, but a more palatable term is, I think, indefinite.

So the 'past tense' of yiqtol is perfectly within the scope of the verb, though the particular term 'past tense' is somewhat foreign to the Biblical Hebrew verb. However, since the job of translation is going from the logic of one language into the logic of another, we can talk about those instances

Re: to rolf

Rolf — 2013-05-25T06:15:54

Dear Nir,

I will wait for your analysis.  In the meantime I have a challenge to those who believe that the semantic meaning of WAYYIQTOL is different from the semantic meaning of YIQTOL, and/or believe that that WAYYIQTOL has past tense:

How will you explain the past reference of all the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs in Psalm 18? How can you uphold your model with so many "exceptions" to it? (There are scores upon scores of similar "exceptions")

I will add another challenge:

The verbs of Proverbs 31:10-29  describe the characteristics of an excellent wife. There are 18 QATALs, 5 YIQTOLs, 9 WAYYIQTOLs, 2 passive participles, 1 Niphal participle, and 1 active participle, all having present reference. If the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs have the opposite meaning, and the WAYYIQTOLs have past tense, how can the 5 YIQTOLs and 9 WAYYIQTOLs in this context have present reference?

But what about the 18 QATALs with present reference, do they have the the same semantic meaning as the YIQTOLs and WAYTYIQTOLs, because they have

Re: isaac dagesh, no. 378

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-24T21:57:47

I agree with you that what I say is conjectural. All we say on this  
topic is conjectural.

1. The term "masorates" is ambiguous and (possibly intentionally)  
misleading. We are talking about the NAQDANIYM, the mysterious people  
(possibly Karaites) who appeared, around the 9th century, from  
nowhere, asked permission from no one, and single handedly  
accomplished this monumental (and possibly rabbinically censured)  
task of punctuating the entire Hebrew bible. Once it was done, it was  
universally accepted. There was no other choice.

2. The Hebrew script was indeed changed, but this was done by an  
absolute authority.

3. The fact of the matter is that "gemination" does not exist today.  
Some say that the traditional Yemenites "geminate", but I am unable  
to verify this as I don't recognize their Torah reading as being  
Hebrew (my fault, of course). Why is "gemination" out? because it is  
redundant.

4. What I mean by "naturally articulated" is the fact that the dagesh  
"forte" appears betwee

to rolf

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-05-24T20:13:39

dear rolf,

thanks for your detailed answer. i'll need to read it carefuly...

nir cohen

isaac dagesh, no. 378

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-05-24T19:54:04

isaac,

your question was a bit ambiguous, ralf answered about the verb form, 
i complete on the dagesh.

all your implicit assumptions are either wrong or conjectural.

1. your conjecture that, for the masoretes, putting a dot inside a 
letter meant disfiguration of the sacred, has no support.

2. quite to the contrary, by the fact that they did put this dot 
there you can conclude that they did NOT consider this as disfiguring.

3. moreover, the dagesh does not touch the letter - they remain 
disconnected. so, geometrically speaking, there is no disfiguring 
whatsoever.

4. but in fact the masoretes and even the talmudists did disfigure the 
letters
much more than this: for example, added to them "ctarim" etc. 
they even changed the alfabet from hebrew to aramaic!!!!!!!!!!! 
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT?? the SACRED script! so, what is "sacred" or 
not is subject to much debate.

5. the argument that gemination was, to the masoretes, "questionable" 
is meaningless: it may be "questionable" only to us. as
to the m

Re: rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-24T17:00:23

I am not totally sure of that either. It is conceivable that when a  
scroll fell into their hands, with something that was not to their  
liking, some of them were not averse to scraping it out and replacing  
it with their own thing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 24, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Rolf wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: [b-hebrew off-list] to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-24T16:29:01

This is what I am saying, the invasive dagesh, which alters the shape  
of the consonant, is not the work of the "masorates". It is the work  
of a prior authority of the highest order.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 24, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Rolf wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: [b-hebrew off-list] to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Rolf — 2013-05-24T15:46:42

Dear Isaac,

The answer is No! The Masoretes were extremely carefult copyists, and they would not dream of altering a single consonant in the holy text. A comparison of the matres lectiones  in the DSS with the Masoretic vowels shows that by and large the system used by the Masoretes were already used at Qumran. However, regarding the short vowels shewa and patah and regarding stress the DSS are silent.

In my opinion the Masoretes did not alter consonants or vowels, and the Masoretes did not invent a system of four verbal conjugations. The Masoretes carefully pointed the text and made their accent marks on the basis of the recitation of the text that they heard in the Synagogue. This vocalization and accentuation, which was pragmatic (based on recitation) were by later scholars given a semantic interpretation, and the system of four verbal conjugations, of which the Masorewtes knew nothing, was born.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
 
 
Fredag 24. Mai 2013 16:48 CEST skrev Isaac Fried <if-5ZbZpmD

Re: [b-hebrew off-list] to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-24T14:48:49

Is it conceivable that the "masorates" would disfigure the sacred  
text itself to mark something that is only questionably there, or  
that naturally articulates itself?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 23, 2013, at 10:13 AM, John Leake wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-24T11:06:05

Here is the translation of verse 7(6)

בצר לי אקרא יהוה ואל אלהי אשוע
ישמע מהיכלו קולי ושועתי לפניו תבוא  
באזניו

be-tight on-I: I-call God, and-to God-I I-cry, He-hear from-palace-He  
voice-I and-plead-I, to-before-He, it-come, by-ears-He

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 24, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Rolf wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Rolf — 2013-05-24T07:36:36

Dear Nir,

I am not certain what you refer to, because there are no prefix forms with prefixed WAW in Isaiah 1:19, 20. But there are four prefix forms without prefixed WAW in these two verses. The first WAYYIQTOL in the book of Isaiah in the MT is 2:7. In the verses 2:7-8 there are three WAYYIQTOLs, and they probably have present reference; the two WAYYIQTOLs in 2:9  probably have  future reference.

If I understand you correctly, your definition of the conversive WAYYIQTOL is that its meaning is converted compared with the YIQTOL, that is, the WAYYIQTOL has the opposite temporal reference (past reference) of the YIQTOL form; whereas the WEYIQTOL is  conjunctive, because it has the same time reference as the YIQTOL. This is the view of many grammatical works, but this map does not fit the terrain! I present three basic methodological criticisms against such grammatical works:

1) The "conversive" sense of the WAYYIQTOL is based on its use in narrative texts. But narrative texts cannot be used to describe the

meaning and value

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-05-23T16:49:20

dear bryant,

often have opposite meanings.

as far as gimatria is concerned, it is just the sum of letter values. so, a
priori a "good" word and a "bad" word may have the same numerical value.

as far as meaning goes, i guess that the kabalists (possibly other 
groups) have developed a separate, parallel "hebrew dictionary", 
where meaning is symbolic and not necessarily coincides with the 
BH dictionary. mainly words related to the spiritual (XYYM, NP$, 
N$NH etc), kabalistic terms (names of the spheres) etc.

as karl said, this may be outside our domain.

nir cohen

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:12:50 -0400, b-hebrew-request wrote


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

John Leake — 2013-05-23T13:14:11

Apols, found the answer online on Gesenius 49c and 20m (there's phonetic reduction of a hypothetically original */wayye-/ to /way-/).

Apols for posting!

John Leake

----------------------------------
ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها
He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it
---------------------------------- 

On 23 May 2013, at 13:53, John Leake <jesleake-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+oqA< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-23T13:12:10

In my opinion the dagesh is not a part of the punctuation –––of  
the NIYQUD. The dot inside the letter is, I believe, an ancient, pre- 
niqud reading prop intended to remind the student or the public  
reader of a vowel. The dagesh must have been entered into the Hebrew  
text by some authority of the highest order. The "masorates" (who  
were actually nobodies)  would not have dared to disfigure the holy  
text itself. The "masorates", I believe, punctuated the HB according  
to the preexisting dagesh.

Otherwise, "gemination" is a fantasy.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, John Leake wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

John Leake — 2013-05-23T12:53:59

Or is ויהי perhaps /wayhî/?

John Leake
----------------------------------
ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها
He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it
---------------------------------- 

On 23 May 2013, at 13:50, John Leake <jesleake-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+oqA< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

John Leake — 2013-05-23T12:50:16

As we all know, whether there is a dagesh or not written on the first letter of the verb in the waw-consecutive depends on whether there's a shewa on the vowel letter. Where theres a shewa there's no daghesh written (e.g. ויהי /wa-yehî/). Where there's no shewa, there's a daghesh (e.g. on the yod of ויאמר /way-yômer/).

 Where there's a shewa, I was under the impression that a qere perpetuum exists. Can anyone better versed in the massorah than I am confirm or refute this as I'm not by any means certain.

John Leake

----------------------------------
ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها
He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it
---------------------------------- 

On 23 May 2013, at 13:15, Isaac Fried <if-5ZbZpmDeezqVc3sceRu5cw< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-05-23T12:40:59

isaac,

your joy was premature, the compound yi for me is the english 
transliteration of dagesh-y.

once again, my advice to you is to avoid declarations 
of the "there is no such thing as" type. one day you 
might have to bite your tongue.

nir cohen

On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:15:12 -0400, Isaac Fried wrote

Re: to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Isaac Fried — 2013-05-23T12:15:12

Do you mean dagesh, a point INSIDE a letter? Otherwise, there is no  
such thing a "gemination" in Hebrew. I am glad to see that you  
correctly write wayiqtol with only one y, the way it is written in  
the Hebrew text.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 23, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

to rolf furuli on wayiqtol

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-05-23T11:14:29

dear rolf,

i repeat (and complete) a mesage that did not go through.

looking at just the first page of the great isaiah scroll i found two
wayiqtol forms which are clearly consecutive and inverted, and not merely
conjunctive. i refer to the wayiqtols in Isa 1:19,20. i did not 
look further but i guess there are many more examples. so it seems 
that your categoric statements below are not precise, at least
from the SEMANTIC point of view.

as to the gemination, patah etc, they are not marked in the DSS at all
and so i do not see your point. clearly PHONOLOGICALLY speaking we do
not know if the vav on wayiqtol was biblically different from the vav 
on weyiqtol; but SEMANTICALLY we can distinguish in "wyyqtol" two 
clearly distinct uses, denoted later by masorah as wayiqtol and 
weyiqtol. even here, there is enough material in the OT itself 
(short/long) to suspect the MORPHOLOGIES of the two were not identical, 
even if the same phonological vav was used. in some places (e.g. 
pausal end) it seems that even