[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Mon Jul 6 10:29:38 EDT 2009
>Hi James,
>
>Well, I'd like for you to explain how it may be analysed imperfectively.
>As far I take the default construal of wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 in its
>context, event time is prior to the deictic centre, thus past. The
>action refers to the whole of the speech event, not some part of it, so
>therefore perfective. (God said all of what he said, not part of it.)
>
>Like I said, please explain how this verb could possibly be taken as
>imperfective in its context.
>
>Regards,
>David Kummerow.
>
DK has demonstrated that he still does not
understand the basic parameters used by
Reichenbach, Comrie, Broman Olsen and myself.
Tense is the relationship between reference time
and the deictic center, not between event time
and the deictic center. This is so because event
time can start before the deictic center and
continue after it. But OK, I agree that the whole
event time in Gen 12:1 is prior to the deictic
center. This shows that the reference is past,
but not that the WAYYIQTOL is past tense. And
there is no way to look inside the verb and know
whether the whole or a part is made visible.
But what about I Genesis 41:1-7? In these verses
we find 9 WAYYIQTOLs and 6 participles. In all
instances event time comes before the deictic
center. On the basis of the the definition above,
the participles should also be perfective. Is
that correct? And what about the hundreds of
YIQTOLs where event time is prior the the deictic
center? Are they also perfective? If not, how can
we know?
In the analysis of the verses below, let us start
with )MD (to stand) in verses 1 (participle) and
3 (WAYYIQTOL). To stand is a state, and a state
has a beginning and an end; the state holds
between beginning and end, and every part of a
state is similar to any other part and to the
state as a whole. Let us now apply the parameters
reference time (R) and event time (E) to the
states of the two verses. Please keep in mind
that E is the time of an event or state from
beginning to end and R is the part of E (small or
great) that is is made visible. In verse 1, would
the writer signal that the end of the state was
reached, i.e., that Pharao *had stood* by the
Nile but was no longer standing there? That can
hardly be the case. But what about the cows in v.
3? Would the writer signal that their state of
standing had reached its end, i.e., that they had
stood beside those on the riverbank? I do not
think that anyone would say that. Even if one
would say that the writer meant to make visible
that the cows came up out of the Nile and began
to stand beside those on the riverbank, the end
of the state is still not reached. So, both in
both the state expressed by the participle and by
the WAYYIQTOL R intersects E after the beginning
and before the end. S, how can this WAYYIQTOL be
perfective?
We may also focus on XLM in verses 1 and 5.
Pharaoh had a dream, in the first instance
expressed by a participle and in the second by a
WAYYIQTOL. Is there a semantic difference? Are
both perfective? How can we know?
The point I am trying to stress is that because
BH is a dead language and there are no
informants, in many cases, probably in most, we
cannot on the basis of the context know whether a
part of an event or state, or the whole event or
state is made visible. We must therefore look at
those situations that are transparent and where
this can clearly be seen. The situations where
the relationship between E and R cannot be seen
must be interpreted in light of the situations
where that can be seen.
Gen. 41:1 When two full years had passed
(WAYYIQTOL), Pharaoh had a dream (participle): He
was standing (PARTICIPLE) by the Nile,
Gen. 41:2 when out of the river there came up
(PARTICIPLE) seven cows, sleek and fat, and they
grazed (WAYYIQTOL) among the reeds.
Gen. 41:3 After them, seven other cows, ugly and
gaunt, came up (PARTICIPLE) out of the Nile and
stood (WAYYIQTOL) beside those on the riverbank.
Gen. 41:4 And the cows that were ugly and gaunt
ate up (WAYYIQTOL) the seven sleek, fat cows.
Then Pharaoh woke up (WAYYIQTOL).
Gen. 41:5 ¶ He fell asleep (WAYYIQTOL) again
and had a second dream (WAYYIQTOL): Seven heads
of grain, healthy and good, were growing
(PARTICIPLE) on a single stalk.
Gen. 41:6 After them, seven other heads of grain
sprouted (PARTICIPLE)-thin and scorched by the
east wind.
Gen. 41:7 The thin heads of grain swallowed
(WAYYIQTOL) up the seven healthy, full heads.
Then Pharaoh woke up (WAYYIQTOL); it had been a
dream.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list