[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
David Kummerow
farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 6 18:59:02 EDT 2009
Hi Rolf,
I see that you again shift the discussion away from evidence which would
seem to go against your position. I ask again: please demonstrate how
wayyo'mer in Gen 12:1 reveals imperfective uncancellable semantics.
(By the way, you've wholly misrepresented my again -- I said nothing
about the relationship between event time and the deictic centre
correlating with perfective aspect! Where on earth did that come from?)
Thanks,
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