[b-hebrew] How does biblical Hebrew describe a past event?
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Wed Jun 24 10:13:58 EDT 2009
Dear list-members,
According to David Kummerows his presentation of
my dissertation is a presentation as he
understands it. But important points he has not
understood, and therefore his review is one-sided
one-sided and biased
>Hi James,
>
>Here's how Rolf's thesis works as I understand it. It starts with the
>assumption that a concept of uncancellable meaning exists in language
>and that such a concept is necessary for understanding the verbal system
>of a language (p.33). That such such a concept actually exists is never
>defended in the thesis but is assumed on every page.
RF:
On p. 33 of my dissertation we read: "This means
that features of the verbal system that cannot be
changed or cancelled represent "semantic
meaning," while features that can be changed or
cancelled, represent "conversational pragmatic
implicature".
This shows that I do not claim that semantic
meaning "exists wholesale across language".
And it is not true that the concept is never
defended! On p. 33 I used the "plod"-example,
and in the following pages I discussed the
uncancellable characteristics of dynamicity,
durativity, and telicity in contrast with the
cancellable characteristics of statitivy and
punctiliarity. The discussion was illustrated by
examples.
>
>The aim of the thesis, then, to discover the "uncancellable meaning" of
>the BH verbal forms (pp.33-34). Rolf's work is an honest work: he
>follows his methodology scrupulously throughout the work. This leads him
>to deny tense as an appropriate meaning of the verbal forms as tense
>categories are not appropriate in every instance. Similarly, this leads
>him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
>appropriate since they do not fit every occurrence. This then leads him
>to redefine the aspectual terminology of perfective and imperfective
>into something that works as he sees it for BH. As you can see, his
>assumption that uncancellable meaning must exist in the verbal system
>leads him directly down the path of even rejecting traditional aspectual
>categories. The end result is conclusions on the BH verbal system which
>he sees but I cannot see. I am unable to see how wayyomer in every
>occurrence represents imperfective aspect. Sorry, but I just can't.
>wayyomer typically refers to a perfective state of affairs.
RF:
David says that he cannot see the conclusions
that I draw. One reason for this is that he has
misunderstood my basic parameters. And when the
foundation of a building is slanting, the whole
building is slanting. The view the reader may get
by reading David's paragraph above is that I
assume that "uncancellable meaning" exists (but
do not demonstrate it), and on the basis of this
assumption I reject tense and aspect (in the
traditional sense). This again is a
misrepresentation where uncancellable meaning
gets a role I never have ascribed to it! I will
now show the real picture, related to the
parameters "event time," (E) " reference time,"
(R) and "deictic center" (C).
The truth is that the concept "uncancellable
meaning" plays no role at all in my *analysis* of
the verb forms-and this is the very opposite of
what David claims. But this concept is used to
substantiate Comrie's definition of tense as "a
grammaticalization of location in time," i.e. the
tenses have some uniform properties, and past
tense and future tense must be distinguished from
past reference and future reference. The concept,
therefore, is a theoretical device or a model, on
the basis of which I assume that if verb forms
with similar morphology, has a reasonable number
of occurrences with past, present, and future
reference, that verb form is not a tense. This is
exactly the same conclusion that Waltke and
O´Connor draw in their "Biblical Hebrew Syntax"
Then back to the approach:
The parameter "deictic center" (C) (the
definition of which David misunderstood) is the
vantage point from which an action is viewed.
Normally it is the present moment but it can be
"tomorrow" as in 1) or "yesterday" as in 2)
1) When you arrive tomorrow, Liza will already have arrived.
2) When you arrived yesterday, Liza had already arrived.
The parameter "event time" was understood by
David. Events that are not instantaneous takes
some time, and this time from beginning to end is
"event time" (E). In English clauses it is
required that E is defined in relation to C, snd
E is given a tense. But it is possible to view E
without putting it into a tense-frame.
The parameter "reference time" (R) is very
important. Because David misunderstood this, it
was not possible for him to understand my
analyses. When we report an event, we do not
always make the whole event time visible, but
only a part of it. Please look at 3) and 4). In
both examples the event is factually completed,
in 3) the imperfective aspect makes visible a
part of the event in the middle of E, while the
perfective aspect in 4) makes visible the end of
the event. Broman Olsen argues that the
differences between the aspects in English is
semantic (uncancellable): the imperfective aspect
portrays incomplete actions in progression while
the perfective aspect portrays completed actions.
3) Ann was walking.
4) Ann has walked.
While event time is real time, reference time is
conceptual time. Reference time represent an
intersection of event time, and it can be defined
as the part of reference time that the speaker or
writer makes visible for the listener or reader.
In order to find the temporal reference of a
verb, one has to find the deictic center, and
then find reference time. If R occurs befor C,
the reference is past, if R occurs after C, the
reference is future, and if R coincides with C,
the reference is present. All verbs were analyzed
for temporal reference, but in some cases it is
difficult to identify C and R with a reasonable
certainty.
The analysis of verbs in order to look for
aspectual properties is different from the tense
analysis. The same parameters are used, but while
tense is the relationship between C and R, aspect
is the relationship between E and R. Early in my
analysis it was apparent that the verbs had
aspectual properties, but they were both similar
and different from the English aspects. While
there are only two options for the relationship
between E and R in English (in the middle or at
the end of E), there are about ten options in BH.
On the basis of this, and on the basis the
difference in quality and breadth (how big part
of E is made visible), I concluded that the BH
aspects were different from the English
counterparts, and they were not mutually
exclusive as in English. So, it is not correct
when David refers to the view that uncancellable
meaning exists and says;
>"Similarly, this leads
>him to deny aspectual categories as traditionally understood to be
appropriate since they do not fit every occurrence."
My definition of BH aspects as different from the
English aspects has nothing to do with
uncencellable meaning. It is based on a careful
analysis of the relationship between E and R in
all the verbs where this can be seen. That all
verbs cannot be analyzed for aspect is an
important point that David has criticized. I have
called this criticism silly. Below is an
illustration why all verbs cannot be analyzed for
aspect. I use the familiar example 2 Samuel 12:3
(NIV) once more.
but the poor man had nothing except one little
ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it (WAYYIQTOL),
and it grew up (WAYYIQTOL) with him and his
children. It shared his food (YIQTOL), drank
(YIQTOL) from his cup and even slept (YIQTOL) in
his arms. It was (WAYYIQTOL) like a daughter to
him.
The deictic center for all the verbs is the
present moment, and there is no problem to see
that reference time comes before C. Therefore,
the three YIQTOLs and three WAYYIQTOLs have past
reference. But what about the relationship
between event time and reference time? There is
nothing in the context that can tell us anything
about reference time, i.e., which part of E that
is made visible. For example, the first WAYYIQTOL
is in the Piel stem. This could suggest that the
man continued to keep the lamb in the state of
being alive, which would suggest an imperfective
force of the WAYYIQTOL (=RT intersects E in the
middle). But we cannot be certain. And further,
since "grow up" is a process, I think it is
likely that the growing process is the focus,
i.e., the lamb continued to grow (imperfective,
RT intersects E in the middle) and not "the lamb
had grown up" (perfective aspect, RT intersect E
at the end). But we cannot be certain. And
regarding the eve lamb. Did the author want to
make visible that it "continued to eat,"
"continued to drink," and "continued to sleep? We
cannot be certain. And the last verb, the state
"to be". I find it very likely that the author
wanted to make visible the continuing state of
being a daughter (imperfective, RT intersects E
in the middle). But again, we cannot be certain.
All the BH verbs have been analyzed for aspect,
i.e. I have ascertained whether it is possible to
conclude with reasonable certainty what the
relationship between E and R is in each verb. But
only the verbs where this is clear have been used
to describe the Hebrew aspects and their meaning.
I have already brought one clear example, namely,
1 Kings 6:1 (NIV), "Solomon...he began to build
the temple of the Lord" In this passage RT
intersects E at the beginning and makes the
beginning and a small part of the action visible,
something that indicate imperfectivity .
>
>If we abandon the need to have every occurrence of a verbal form
>instantiating the same meaning, then we are relieved from having to see
>in every occurrence of a verbal form the same intrinsic meaning. In this
>way, for people who view the BH verbal system as aspect-prominent, then
>some occurrences of of a verb form which do not instantiate the regular
>aspectual meaning can see an instance of the grammaticalization of the
>verbal system from aspect to tense (so Cook's dissertation). For people
>who view the BH verbal system as tense-prominant, then some occurrences
>of a verb form which do not instantiate the normal tense meaning can
>view such an occurrence as the aspectual heritage of the form still not
>completely grammaticalized away.
RF:
If we approach BH without preconceived ideas as
to whether it is a tense-language or
aspect-language we must view a grammaticalization
process as mentioned above as a possibility.
The advantage of my approach using C, E, and R,
is that the approach has no assumptions regarding
tense or not, or regarding aspect or not. But
these parameters can be used to find out whether
BH has tenses and whether it has aspects, andif
the aspects are similar or different from the
English aspects. Moreover, the parameters can be
used to find out whether there is a
grammaticalization process that is not yet
finished as well.
If there had been such a grammaticalization
process, it must have occurred over several
hundred years, and traces of it must be seen. In
other words, it must either be seen that the form
in question was used in different ways in the
oldest books of the Tanakh, and then became more
specific until it had only one use (being fully
grammaticalized), or two or a few uses (the
grammticalization process was not being
completed). Or if the assumption is that there
was a grammticalization process from aspect to
tense, this gradual process must also be
demonstrated from the oldest to the youngest
books. My analyses show that no such process is
discernible, and no one, not even Cook, has shown
diachronically such a process.
There are two fundamental problems with the view
of a suggestion of a grammaticalization process
in BH:
a) The definition of "tense" is unproblematic.
But if one points to a verb and say that because
of the grammaticalization process this is a tense
and not an aspect, how can we distinguish between
tense and temporal reference in a single or
several instances? Without a systematic study of
all the verbs, whether a particular verb has
tense or temporal reference anyone's guess.
b) What is aspect? In the linguistic literature,
aspect has been defined in between 20 and 30
different ways. So, to postulate a
grammaticalization process from aspect to tense,
one must (arbitrarily) choose one definition and
apply this one to BH. But how can we know that
this definition fits the BH verb?
The approach using C, E. and R on the other hand,
completely avoids both problems, because it only
uses three fundamental parameters, and no
particular definitions of aspect are necessary.
>
>It is difficult for me to see how operating with the assumption of
>"uncancellable meaning" can operate in areas of language which face
>grammaticalization. I wrote in my review (pp.131-132):
snip
As mentioned above, I have made research
regarding grammaticalization, and I have found no
traces of it.
>
>
>Regards,
>David Kummerow.
>
I see no reason to continue the discussion with
David Kummerow; we live in two different
linguistic worlds. But he has made a review of my
dissertation that reveals that he has not
understood its basic parameters and arguments.
And therefore he has misrepresented me in several
ways and ascribed views to me that I either do
not have or he has taken views that I have
completely out of proportion. In order to show a
bit of that I have continued this exchange of
E-mails, but I do not want to continue further.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list