Biblical Hebrew: The meaning of vav-consecutive + stative prefix conjugation verbs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drink

Senior Member
English - New England, Russian - Moscow
Perhaps because "was" would mean that Y----- is no longer exalted?

Why would it necessarily mean that? That's a silly assumption. If I said "Yesterday, I climbed a mountain. The mountain was very high." does my use of "was" imply that that mountain is no longer high? Of course not.

Your interpretation, using "become" does however imply that he was once not exalted.


Could you give me an example? Thanks!

I believe you have given such examples yourself, have you not?

Anyway, I don't have my copy of Joüon and Muraoka available to me at the moment, but it gives such examples. Perhaps you should get yourself a copy? The chapter on the usage of the various verbal forms will help you a lot.
 
  • Madeeha719

    Member
    Bahasa Melayu
    If vav-consecutive + stative prefix conjugation verb means the same thing as a stative suffix conjugation verb, what's the point of using the former structure? Why not just use a stative suffix conjugation verb?
     

    Abaye

    Senior Member
    Hebrew
    If vav-consecutive + stative prefix conjugation verb means the same thing as a stative suffix conjugation verb, what's the point of using the former structure? Why not just use a stative suffix conjugation verb?
    If I understand the question, you ask what waw-consecutive is good for if we can say the same without it. This question may apply to any verb, not necessarily stative. Such a question seems futile, the biblical language uses this structure regardless of whether there are other possible ways to express the same.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    The simplest thing to say is that if you have a vav, you the verb will most likely be vav-consecutive. Simple as that. If you need the vav for whichever of its meanings, and the vav is attached to a verb, 90% of the time it will be vav-consecutive.
     

    zj73

    Senior Member
    Punjabi - West Punjab
    I would not recommend mixing in theological views with textual or linguistic analysis. People of the past didn't necessarily have the same theological views that readers today have and even in cases where they might, these are poetic texts and they have wide poetic license to use flowery language and emotional imagery.

    In this case, yes, it means "and he rose" and "he became holy".
    I totally agree. We should not be concerned with theology when looking at linguistic usage.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Regarding the original question I would say that one should compile a list of stative verbs (all of which will be in the G-stem, of course) and use a concordance of the Bible to find relevant forms, i.e. waw-retentive + prefix-conjugation verb. When looking at the data, it will be essential to distinguish: 1. examples that must be an event rather than a state, 2. examples that must be a state rather than an event, and 3. examples in which a state is consistent with the context but so is an event. As far as I know, there are no examples of the second group.

    I totally agree. We should not be concerned with theology when looking at linguistic usage.

    If the only examples in the second category are those in which a state is predicated of God, then one must tread carefully. It has been said that although God can't undergo a change of state, one cannot allow theology to drive grammatical analysis. I do not agree! The theology of the writers may have dictated their usage, but that was a linguistic usage, not a theological usage, i.e., they were expressing their view of things in their language in a non-linguistic fashion, as native speakers of the language, not as modern grammarians.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    I think the crucial point is that we must not assume that our modern understanding of theology (or for that matter, of sociology, science, and even language itself) is the same as theirs.

    For example, if an ancient text says something that presumes that the heart is the organ of thought, we cannot say "this doesn't make sense, because you think with your brain rather than your heart". Rather we must understand that at the time the text was composed, there were different views of things than there are today.

    Furthermore, we must never even be certain that what we think people at the time believed is actually what people at the time believed.
     

    zaw

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    What do you mean by event? Do you mean a change of state? If so, here is an instance of waw-retentive + stative prefix conjugation verb that must be an event. The reason is a state would not be consistent with the context.

    וַתֹּ֣אמֶר שָׂרָ֔ה צְחֹ֕ק עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֱלֹהִ֑ים כׇּל־הַשֹּׁמֵ֖עַ יִֽצְחַק־לִֽי׃
    וַתֹּ֗אמֶר מִ֤י מִלֵּל֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם הֵינִ֥יקָה בָנִ֖ים שָׂרָ֑ה כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי בֵ֖ן לִזְקֻנָֽיו׃
    וַיִּגְדַּ֥ל הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַיִּגָּמַ֑ל וַיַּ֤עַשׂ אַבְרָהָם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֣ה גָד֔וֹל בְּי֖וֹם הִגָּמֵ֥ל אֶת־יִצְחָֽק׃
    (בראשית כא ו-ח)

    And Sarah said, "God has made laughter for me. Everyone who hears will laugh with me." And she said, "Who would announce to Abraham that Sarah would suckle sons? For I have given birth to a son in his old age." And the child grew up and he was weaned and Abraham held a big banquet on the day of the weaning of Isaac.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    We've discussed this verse several times already. You can understand it either as a state or as a change of state. "And the child was grown" fits just as well as "And the child grew up".
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Doesn't the context clearly indicate transition? How else does the reader go from

    וַתֹּ֗אמֶר מִ֤י מִלֵּל֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם הֵינִ֥יקָה בָנִ֖ים שָׂרָ֑ה כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי בֵ֖ן לִזְקֻנָֽיו׃
    to
    וַיִּגְדַּ֥ל הַיֶּ֖לֶד?
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    Doesn't the context clearly indicate transition? How else does the reader go from

    וַתֹּ֗אמֶר מִ֤י מִלֵּל֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם הֵינִ֥יקָה בָנִ֖ים שָׂרָ֑ה כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי בֵ֖ן לִזְקֻנָֽיו׃
    to
    וַיִּגְדַּ֥ל הַיֶּ֖לֶד?
    The context clearly indicates that there was a transition. But it's not clear whether the transition takes place within the verb or before it.
     

    𒋛𒄠 𒂵𒉿𒀉

    New Member
    Kashmiri - Azad Kashmir
    Here vav-consecutive + stative prefix verb clearly means a change of state, not a state:

    וּכְכַלּוֹתָם הֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וִיהוֹיָדָע אֶת שְׁאָר הַכֶּסֶף וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כֵלִים לְבֵית יְהוָה כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת וְהַעֲלוֹת וְכַפּוֹת וּכְלֵי זָהָב וָכָסֶף וַיִּהְיוּ מַעֲלִים עֹלוֹת בְּבֵית יְהוָה תָּמִיד כֹּל יְמֵי יְהוֹיָדָע.
    וַיִּזְקַן יְהוֹיָדָע וַיִּשְׂבַּע יָמִים וַיָּמֹת בֶּן מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה בְּמוֹתוֹ.
    וַיִּקְבְּרֻהוּ בְעִיר דָּוִיד עִם הַמְּלָכִים כִּי עָשָׂה טוֹבָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְעִם הָאֱלֹהִים וּבֵיתוֹ.
    (Books of Chronicles 2 24:14-16)
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    𒋛𒄠 𒂵𒉿𒀉: If you're talking about וַיִּזְקַן, then I agree with you.

    וּכְכַלּוֹתָם הֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וִיהוֹיָדָע אֶת שְׁאָר הַכֶּסֶף וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כֵלִים לְבֵית יְהוָה כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת וְהַעֲלוֹת וְכַפּוֹת וּכְלֵי זָהָב וָכָסֶף וַיִּהְיוּ מַעֲלִים עֹלוֹת בְּבֵית יְהוָה תָּמִיד כֹּל יְמֵי יְהוֹיָדָע.
    וַיִּזְקַן יְהוֹיָדָע וַיִּשְׂבַּע יָמִים וַיָּמֹת בֶּן מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה בְּמוֹתוֹ.
    וַיִּקְבְּרֻהוּ בְעִיר דָּוִיד עִם הַמְּלָכִים כִּי עָשָׂה טוֹבָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְעִם הָאֱלֹהִים וּבֵיתוֹ.
    (דברי הימים ב כד יד-טז)

    When they had finished, they brought the rest of the silver before the king and Jehoiada, and they made it into vessels for the house of Yahweh, vessels for the service and the burnt offering and pans and vessels of gold and silver. And they offered burnt offerings in the house of the Yahweh continually all the days of Jehoiada. But Jehoiada became old and full of days and died; he was one hundred and thirty years old at his death, and they buried him in David's city together with the kings because he had done good in Israel with respect to God and His house.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    I'd say it's still not so clear. Just like in the previous example, it could be that the change of state is within the verb, or it could be that the change of state precedes the verb. Like "and (some time later) Yehoyada was old and full of days and he died".
     

    𒋛𒄠 𒂵𒉿𒀉

    New Member
    Kashmiri - Azad Kashmir
    I'd say it's still not so clear. Just like in the previous example, it could be that the change of state is within the verb, or it could be that the change of state precedes the verb. Like "and (some time later) Yehoyada was old and full of days and he died".
    It's as clear as can be. There is no way it could be anything but a change of state. And look at this:

    רְבָבָ֗ה כְּצֶ֤מַח הַשָּׂדֶה֙ נְתַתִּ֔יךְ וַתִּרְבִּי֙ וַֽתִּגְדְּלִ֔י וַתָּבֹ֖אִי בַּעֲדִ֣י עֲדָיִ֑ים שָׁדַ֤יִם נָכֹ֙נוּ֙ וּשְׂעָרֵ֣ךְ צִמֵּ֔חַ וְאַ֖תְּ עֵרֹ֥ם וְעֶרְיָֽה׃
    (Ezekiel 16:7)

    This, too, cannot be anything but a change of state.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    It's as clear as can be. There is no way it could be anything but a change of state.
    If you are having trouble understanding the alternative I explanation I gave, I can try to explain it better. But I assure you, it is not "clear as day" once you recognize that there is this alternative.

    And look at this:

    רְבָבָ֗ה כְּצֶ֤מַח הַשָּׂדֶה֙ נְתַתִּ֔יךְ וַתִּרְבִּי֙ וַֽתִּגְדְּלִ֔י וַתָּבֹ֖אִי בַּעֲדִ֣י עֲדָיִ֑ים שָׁדַ֤יִם נָכֹ֙נוּ֙ וּשְׂעָרֵ֣ךְ צִמֵּ֔חַ וְאַ֖תְּ עֵרֹ֥ם וְעֶרְיָֽה׃
    (Ezekiel 16:7)

    This, too, cannot be anything but a change of state.
    I agree that in this example my alternative interpretation doesn't fit the meaning. So here it is much clearer.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Why? Why can't וַתִּרְבִּי be interpreted as stative? Or were you talking about וַתִּגְדְּלִי?
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    Why? Why can't וַתִּרְבִּי be interpreted as stative? Or were you talking about וַתִּגְדְּלִי?
    I mean ותרבי and ותגדלי here should be interpreted in the same way, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

    What is your interpretation of this verse if these are indicating a state and not a change of state?
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    רְבָבָ֗ה כְּצֶ֤מַח הַשָּׂדֶה֙ נְתַתִּ֔יךְ וַתִּרְבִּי֙ וַֽתִּגְדְּלִ֔י וַתָּבֹ֖אִי בַּעֲדִ֣י עֲדָיִ֑ים שָׁדַ֤יִם נָכֹ֙נוּ֙ וּשְׂעָרֵ֣ךְ צִמֵּ֔חַ וְאַ֖תְּ עֵרֹ֥ם וְעֶרְיָֽה׃
    (יחזקאל טז ז)

    I have given you a very great quantity like the sprouting of the field and you were numerous and you were big and you entered into jewelry of jewelries. Breasts were firm and your hair grew abundantly and you are nakedness and bareness.

    There most certainly was a change of state, but it may have preceded the verbs in question.
     

    Abaye

    Senior Member
    Hebrew
    What this discussion is about? One forum member says that גדל is used as either stative or dynamic (ie non-stative), other members show that it is stative in many cases. There's no contradiction between these two. So is there a claim that גדל is only stative? But in that case why we have גדול as a stative adjective for גדל but we don't have שמון for root שמנ, or זקון for root זקנ? IMHO גדול may be required because גָדֵל is ambiguous. Also see this verse that was mentioned already in the thread:
    וַיִּגְדַּל הָאִישׁ וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְגָדֵל עַד כִּי גָדַל מְאֹד
    The last גָדַל is not the standard stative perf. 3rd sing. masc., which (this too is IMHO) may hint that this root was in use for both stative and dynamic and therefore it was easy to get confused, like the colloquial Hebrew popular conjugation of גדל as dynamic.

    Or maybe the claim is that גדל is always stative WHEN appears as waw consecutive + imperfect? But is there any other example where a root changes its stativeness in such situation?

    גָּדֵל או גּוֹדֵל? יָשֵׁן או יוֹשֵׁן? - האקדמיה ללשון העברית
     
    Last edited:

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    The discussion is whether there is an example where vav-hahipuch + prefix conjugation can ever have a purely stative meaning that cannot also be interpreted as a dynamic change-of-state.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    רְבָבָ֗ה כְּצֶ֤מַח הַשָּׂדֶה֙ נְתַתִּ֔יךְ וַתִּרְבִּי֙ וַֽתִּגְדְּלִ֔י וַתָּבֹ֖אִי בַּעֲדִ֣י עֲדָיִ֑ים שָׁדַ֤יִם נָכֹ֙נוּ֙ וּשְׂעָרֵ֣ךְ צִמֵּ֔חַ וְאַ֖תְּ עֵרֹ֥ם וְעֶרְיָֽה׃
    (יחזקאל טז ז)

    I have given you a very great quantity like the sprouting of the field and you were numerous and you were big and you entered into jewelry of jewelries. Breasts were firm and your hair grew abundantly and you are nakedness and bareness.

    There most certainly was a change of state, but it may have preceded the verbs in question.
    I get it. I think the key point is you interpret נתתיך as a pluperfect here. Right, so it's another case where both options can make sense.
     

    S1234

    Senior Member
    Urdu
    What about in

    וְלָרָ֣שׁ אֵֽין־כֹּ֗ל כִּי֩ אִם־כִּבְשָׂ֨ה אַחַ֤ת קְטַנָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָנָ֔ה וַיְחַיֶּ֕הָ וַתִּגְדַּ֥ל עִמּ֛וֹ וְעִם־בָּנָ֖יו יַחְדָּ֑ו מִפִּתּ֨וֹ תֹאכַ֜ל וּמִכֹּס֤וֹ תִשְׁתֶּה֙ וּבְחֵיק֣וֹ תִשְׁכָּ֔ב וַתְּהִי־ל֖וֹ כְּבַֽת׃
    from Samuel 2 12:3

    Can this be a state as well as a change of state or only the latter?
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    This is a great example. Here I think it's pretty clear it's a change of state. It wouldn't make much sense as a state.
     

    USani

    Member
    Urdu-Pakistani
    this be a state as well as a change of state or only the latter?
    You will find 1. verbs that can only be a change of state and 2. verbs that may be a change of state and may be a state. But you will never find 3. a verb that is only a state. I am talking about vav-consecutive + stative prefix conjugation verbs, of course.
     

    risotto

    Member
    English - US
    Usani: What about this?

    וּמִן־הָאַחַ֣ת מֵהֶ֔ם יָצָ֥א קֶֽרֶן־אַחַ֖ת מִצְּעִירָ֑ה וַתִּגְדַּל־יֶ֛תֶר אֶל־הַנֶּ֥גֶב וְאֶל־הַמִּזְרָ֖ח וְאֶל־הַצֶּֽבִי׃
    וַתִּגְדַּ֖ל עַד־צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַתַּפֵּ֥ל אַ֛רְצָה מִן־הַצָּבָ֥א וּמִן־הַכּוֹכָבִ֖ים וַֽתִּרְמְסֵֽם׃
    (Daniel 8:9 & 10)

    There is no way the two וַתִּגְדַּלs could be a change of state; they represent states for sure.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Usani: What about this?

    וּמִן־הָאַחַ֣ת מֵהֶ֔ם יָצָ֥א קֶֽרֶן־אַחַ֖ת מִצְּעִירָ֑ה וַתִּגְדַּל־יֶ֛תֶר אֶל־הַנֶּ֥גֶב וְאֶל־הַמִּזְרָ֖ח וְאֶל־הַצֶּֽבִי׃
    וַתִּגְדַּ֖ל עַד־צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַתַּפֵּ֥ל אַ֛רְצָה מִן־הַצָּבָ֥א וּמִן־הַכּוֹכָבִ֖ים וַֽתִּרְמְסֵֽם׃
    (Daniel 8:9 & 10)

    There is no way the two וַתִּגְדַּלs could be a change of state; they represent states for sure.
    Why can't they represent a change of state?

    וּמִן־הָאַחַ֣ת מֵהֶ֔ם יָצָ֥א קֶֽרֶן־אַחַ֖ת מִצְּעִירָ֑ה וַתִּגְדַּל־יֶ֛תֶר אֶל־הַנֶּ֥גֶב וְאֶל־הַמִּזְרָ֖ח וְאֶל־הַצֶּֽבִי׃
    וַתִּגְדַּ֖ל עַד־צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַתַּפֵּ֥ל אַ֛רְצָה מִן־הַצָּבָ֥א וּמִן־הַכּוֹכָבִ֖ים וַֽתִּרְמְסֵֽם׃
    (דניאל ח ט-י)

    And out of one of them came one horn from a small one and it became big excessively toward the south and toward the east and toward the beauty. And it became big as far as the army of the sky and it made some of the army and some of the stars fall earthward and it trampled them.
     

    𒋛𒄠 𒂵𒉿𒀉

    New Member
    Kashmiri - Azad Kashmir
    וַיֵּ֗רֶד וַיִּטְבֹּ֤ל בַּיַּרְדֵּן֙ שֶׁ֣בַע פְּעָמִ֔ים כִּדְבַ֖ר אִ֣ישׁ הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיָּ֣שׇׁב בְּשָׂר֗וֹ כִּבְשַׂ֛ר נַ֥עַר קָטֹ֖ן וַיִּטְהָֽר׃
    (2 Kings 5:14)

    Here the verb could be either a state or a change of state. But in Risotto's example (post 76) it is clearly a state, not a change of state.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉 has a point. The context indicates that the goat had already grown big, i.e. the change of state had already taken place. Observe:

    וּרְאִיתִ֞יו מַגִּ֣יעַ ׀ אֵ֣צֶל הָאַ֗יִל וַיִּתְמַרְמַ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ וַיַּ֣ךְ אֶת־הָאַ֔יִל וַיְשַׁבֵּר֙ אֶת־שְׁתֵּ֣י קְרָנָ֔יו וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה כֹ֛חַ בָּאַ֖יִל לַעֲמֹ֣ד לְפָנָ֑יו וַיַּשְׁלִיכֵ֤הוּ אַ֙רְצָה֙ וַֽיִּרְמְסֵ֔הוּ וְלֹא־הָיָ֥ה מַצִּ֛יל לָאַ֖יִל מִיָּדֽוֹ׃
    וּצְפִ֥יר הָעִזִּ֖ים הִגְדִּ֣יל עַד־מְאֹ֑ד וּכְעׇצְמ֗וֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה֙ הַקֶּ֣רֶן הַגְּדֹלָ֔ה וַֽתַּעֲלֶ֜נָה חָז֤וּת אַרְבַּע֙ תַּחְתֶּ֔יהָ לְאַרְבַּ֖ע רוּח֥וֹת הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
    וּמִן־הָאַחַ֣ת מֵהֶ֔ם יָצָ֥א קֶֽרֶן־אַחַ֖ת מִצְּעִירָ֑ה וַתִּגְדַּל־יֶ֛תֶר אֶל־הַנֶּ֥גֶב וְאֶל־הַמִּזְרָ֖ח וְאֶל־הַצֶּֽבִי׃
    וַתִּגְדַּ֖ל עַד־צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַתַּפֵּ֥ל אַ֛רְצָה מִן־הַצָּבָ֥א וּמִן־הַכּוֹכָבִ֖ים וַֽתִּרְמְסֵֽם׃
    (דניאל ח ז-י)
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    I don't see the problem with that. Repeating the fact that it grew doesn't mean that it can't mean "grew". Try putting in the English word "grew" as the translation, and you'll see that it's quite plausible.
     

    𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

    New Member
    Punjabi - Pakistan
    וַיֵּ֗רֶד וַיִּטְבֹּ֤ל בַּיַּרְדֵּן֙ שֶׁ֣בַע פְּעָמִ֔ים כִּדְבַ֖ר אִ֣ישׁ הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיָּ֣שׇׁב בְּשָׂר֗וֹ כִּבְשַׂ֛ר נַ֥עַר קָטֹ֖ן וַיִּטְהָֽר׃
    (2 Kings 5:14)

    Here the verb could be either a state or a change of state.
    Come to think of it, this has to he a change of state too.
     

    zaw

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Because initially he was not pure. A change took place. Isn't that obvious? וַיִּטְהָֽר says the change took place. How else would you know that a change took place?
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    You're confusing two things. Regardless of whether the verb is indicating a state or a change of state, it could tell us about a change that took place either way.

    Let me give you the following examples in English:
    - The man was young, and then he became old.
    - The man was young, and then he was old.

    In both sentences, the second part tells us that a change of state happened. However, in the first sentence it tells us using a verb that indicates a change of state in itself, while in the second sentence it tells us using a verb that indicates the new state, implying that the change took place.

    So when we're talking about the function of verb forms, merely stating that the verb is telling us that something happened does not prove that how the verb is telling us that.
     

    Aleppan

    Member
    Arabic
    If you want a real ambiguous case (unlike the previous one) look at Judges 19:4

    וַיַּחֲזֶק־בּ֤וֹ חֹתְנוֹ֙ אֲבִ֣י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אִתּ֖וֹ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַיֹּאכְלוּ֙ וַיִּשְׁתּ֔וּ וַיָּלִ֖ינוּ שָֽׁם׃

    The verb וַיַּחֲזֶק could mean either state or change of state.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    If you want a real ambiguous case (unlike the previous one) look at Judges 19:4

    וַיַּחֲזֶק־בּ֤וֹ חֹתְנוֹ֙ אֲבִ֣י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אִתּ֖וֹ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַיֹּאכְלוּ֙ וַיִּשְׁתּ֔וּ וַיָּלִ֖ינוּ שָֽׁם׃

    The verb וַיַּחֲזֶק could mean either state or change of state.
    Absolutely not. It is clearly a change of state. Look at the translation:

    וַיַּחֲזֶק־בּ֤וֹ חֹתְנוֹ֙ אֲבִ֣י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אִתּ֖וֹ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַיֹּאכְלוּ֙ וַיִּשְׁתּ֔וּ וַיָּלִ֖ינוּ שָֽׁם׃
    (שופטים יט ד)

    His father-in-law, the girl's father, detained him, and he stayed with him three days, and they ate and drank and spent the nights there.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    It certainly can. I think most of the time people in this thread who say "this example can't mean that" are just not managing to reframe their perspective.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    וַיַּחֲזֶק־בּ֤וֹ חֹתְנוֹ֙ אֲבִ֣י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אִתּ֖וֹ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַיֹּאכְלוּ֙ וַיִּשְׁתּ֔וּ וַיָּלִ֖ינוּ שָֽׁם׃
    (שופטים יט ד)

    His father-in-law, the girl's father, detained him, and he stayed with him three days, and they ate and drank and spent the nights there.

    How would you translate וַיַּחֲזֶק if it represented a state?
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    How would you translate וַיַּחֲזֶק if it represented a state?
    "Was stronger than".

    "Detained" is already a non-literal translation anyway. If I were to translate it more literally under the dynamic interpretation, I'd use the word "overpowered."

    And in any case, you cannot use an English translation as proof of the Hebrew grammar.
     

    S1234

    Senior Member
    Urdu
    Everybody knows that in order to make an adjective or stative verb comparative or superlative you have to use מן. Lambdin says so.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    Everybody knows that in order to make an adjective or stative verb comparative or superlative you have to use מן. Lambdin says so.
    Yes, so what? Since when does there have to be only one way to do something?

    Besides, here it's not strictly a comparative. It's more to do with overpowering. "He was strong enough to overpower him" could maybe get the idea across better.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    Oh wait, I have to backtrack on everything I said about וַיַּחֲזֶק.

    I just realized it is וַיַּחֲזֶק and not וַיֶּחֱזַק. This indicates it is hif'il, and thus an active verb.

    So perhaps "detained" is a more accurate translation after all. Or "grabbed" or "siezed".
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Oh wait, I have to backtrack on everything I said about וַיַּחֲזֶק.

    I just realized it is וַיַּחֲזֶק and not וַיֶּחֱזַק. This indicates it is hif'il, and thus an active verb.

    So perhaps "detained" is a more accurate translation after all. Or "grabbed" or "siezed".
    Don't the פתח in the first syllable fool you. It could be hif'il but it could also be qal. Cf. יַעֲבֹד 'he will work/serve' and יַעֲמֹד 'he will stand'.
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    Don't the פתח in the first syllable fool you. It could be hif'il but it could also be qal. Cf. יַעֲבֹד 'he will work/serve' and יַעֲמֹד 'he will stand'.
    What do יַעֲבֹד and יַעֲמֹד have to do with anything? The qal form for this verb is יֶחֱזַק not יַחֲזֹק or יַחֲזֵק. You must holistically look at the whole form, not just one vowel.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top