[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: orion The "tenses" of DSS Hebrew




Dear Fred,

I think it was your compatriot Otto Jespersen (1924 "The Philosophy of
Grammar") who was the first to introduce the difference between time and
tense (e.g. past meaning versus past tense). Apart from my own mag. art
thesis I am not aware of any study of Hebrew verbs which systematically has
differentiated between past meaning and past tense.  Smith's book includes
much fine material, but his conclusions regarding wayyiqtol are valid only
if past meaning=past tense (see p 38). So I was wondering if anybody on the
list had some personal views regarding the verbs of DSS Hebrew.


Regards

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo




>Dear Rolf--
>Mark Smith has shown that there are many converted forms present in DSS
>Hebrew, but, of course, there are numerous examples present where this is
>not the case--just as there are in BH, as you point out. Walther Gross has
>even written a whole volume dealing with the BH category.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Fred Cryer
>University of Copenhagen
>
>> ----------
>> From: 	Rolf Furuli[SMTP:furuli@online.no]
>> Reply To: 	orion@mscc.huji.ac.il
>> Sent: 	12, januar 1999 19.25
>> Subject: 	orion The "tenses" of DSS Hebrew
>>
>>
>> Dear listmembers,
>>
>>
>> In J.H. Charlesworth (1997) "The Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew, Aramaic, and
>> Greek Texts with English Translations", volume 4A, pp 40-45, there is a
>> comparison of 4Q236 and the Masoretic text of Psalm 89.
>> In Psalm 89:20 we find a wayyiqtol of )mR, which is translated by
>> P.W.Flint
>> as "and said". However, the corresponding verb in  4Q236 (1) is a yiqtol
>> of
>> )MR which he translates as "you will say". I ask: Is there really a
>> justification for seeing a tense difference here?
>>
>> For instance, if we look at Psalm 89:43-44 we find a Hifil yiqtol in the
>> middle of three Hifil qatals, all having past meaning, so even in the
>> Psalm
>> does not a yiqtol necessarily have future meaning.  E. Qimron (1986) "The
>> Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls",  p 45, note 7 says: "It is unclear
>> whether
>> DSS Hebrew has a distinctive form for consecutive waw, as the short
>> imperfect is used even in cases where the waw does not convert the tense,
>> e.g. TS 23:17. BH too employs the short form of the imperfect with both
>> waw
>> consecutive and waw conjunctive, e.g. WE:YF$EB Dn 11:19 ( contrast YF$IB
>> ib. 18)."
>>
>> I would like to hear some opinions about this question: Could there be
>> that
>> there is absolutely no converting waws at all in DSS Hebrew, to the effect
>> that we should not expect to find a
>>  semantic difference between yiqtols with and without prefixed waw?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rolf Furuli
>> Lecturer in Semitic languages
>> University of Oslo
>>
>>
>> For private reply, e-mail to Rolf Furuli <furuli@online.no>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
>> the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
>> or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
>>
>For private reply, e-mail to "Frederick H. Cryer" <fc@teol.ku.dk>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
>the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
>or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.



For private reply, e-mail to Rolf Furuli <furuli@online.no>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.