[b-hebrew] BH verbal system
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Fri Jan 29 11:29:37 EST 2010
Dear Joseph,
I have Hebrew grammar of Schneider (In German)
in my library, and I have a short discussion of
it in my doctoral dissertation. Both Schneider
and Alviero Niccacci base their works on Harald
Weinrich (1974) "Tempus: Besprochende und
Erzählte Welt." Weinrich admits that his analysis
of the verbal systems of languages on the basis
of discourse analysis is "unassailable," that is,
the conclusions cannot be tested. So why should
we believe them?
In addition to this very grave weakness, I would
say that Schneider's work to some extent is
tautological and to some extent is circular.
Further, it uses grammatical terms in a
sub-standard way-if we judge his work from the
point of view of elementary linguistics!
One examples of a tautological conclusion is as
follows: "The primary tense of the narrative is
WAYYIQTOL." What is the reason for the
conclusion? Because the WAYYIQTOL form so often
is used in the narrative texts. This is similar
to saying: "John is the father of Charles, and
Charles is the son of John." Hebrew writers used
such statements as stylistic devices, but they
should not occur in modern grammars, because they
explain nothing.
It is a fundamental linguistic truth that verbs
used in narratives have past reference. Thus, the
past reference need not be a semantic part of the
*verb form*, the past reference may be pragmatic;
its basis being the context. In Phoenician,
infinitive absolute is used as the narrative
verb, but it is not a past tense. In In the
Ugaritic saga of Kirta (Keret) prefix forms
(YAQTUL) are used with past reference as
narrative verbs. Then, exactly the same account
with exactly the same prefix forms (a few
exceptions, though) are used with future
reference. Therefore, the USE of WAYYIQTOL in
Hebrew narratives does not tell us anything about
whether it is a tense (that past tense is a
semantic part of the very form). To the contrary,
I have a list of about one thousand WAYYIQTOLs
with non-past reference. And they show that
WAYYIQTOL is not a tense at all. The term
"tense" is defined as "a grammaticalized location
in time." Schneider does not distinguish between
"past tense" (semantic past) and past reference
(pragmatic past), and this is linguistically
speaking sub-standard.
The tautological nature of an analysis of the
Hebrew verbal system based on discourse
analysis, that is, on the difference between
narrative and discourse, is less problematic that
the circularity. The verb forms YIQTOL,
WAYYIQTOL, and QATAL have been assigned
different functions in narrative and discourse.
Now, it is often easy to identify narrative
texts, but in many contexts it is not easy on the
basis of the context to distinguish between
narrative and discourse, between foreground and
background information etc. But this is often
done on the basis of the theory. This means that
when a verb form is assigned to represent a
certain kind of communication, the clause or
context where it occurs is viewed as representing
such a communication (for example foreground or
background) because the verb form occurs there.
So the nature of the clause(s) is defined on the
basis of the verb that occurs, and the occurrence
of the verb form there confirms the correctness
of the linguistic theory. This is circular
reasoning! We find this in Schneider, Niccacci,
and in numerous discussions regarding discourse
analysis that have occurred on this list through
the years.
In the natural sciences the smallest parts of
particular objects are studied. On this basis,
balanced conclusions can be drawn. A basic
principle of the Philosophy of Science is that
the certainty of a scientific conclusion is
inversely proportional with the number of
components that must be accounted for at the same
time. And please keep in mind that Schenider and
others who use discourse analysis, do not study
single words, nor single sentences (although this
can also be done). But they study chunks of text
above the sentence level. So they must deal with
scores of factors at the same time. No certain
conclusions can be drawn on the basis of so many
factors. Therefore, a preconceived theoretical
system is made beforehand, and the text is
studied in the light of this system. Thus, the
conclusions cannot be tested.
I have mentioned it in several posts on this
list, and I mention it again. There is one basic
linguistic principle that is almost completely
ignored in studies of Semitic verbs. This is the
very opposite principle of discourse analysis.
First semester students of linguistics learn it,
and if they do not use it in their works, they
will not get their exams-yet many Semitic
scholars ignore it. The principle is that in any
study of the verbal system we must distinguish
between "semantic meaning" (meaning that is an
uncancellable part of the verb form) and
"conversational pragmatic implicature" (meaning
that is caused by the context and is
cancellable). On the basis of this distinction,
a very simple test can be made to find out
whether tense is a part of the Hebrew verbal
system: If a verb form is a tense, it will have
the same temporal reference in any context, save
special cases that can be explained, such as
hypothetical conditional clauses. I have made
this test of all verbs of the Tanakh, and I have
found that no verb form has a uniform temporal
reference. Therefore, "tense" (grammaticalized
location in time) is non-existent in Classical
Hebrew. Schneider has not made such a test, but
he has just assumed that tense is existent.
The ancient Semitic languages are typically
aspect languages. This is true with Hebrew and
Aramaic. However, modern Hebrew and modern
Aramaic are tense languages, and at least in the
case of Aramaic and Syriac (which is a part of
the Aramaic family) there has been a gradual
grammaticalization process from aspect to tense.
But aspects die hard! It is assumed in grammars
and textbooks that Syriac (witnessed from the 1st
century C.E.) is a tense language. But clearly,
the grammaticalization was not completed at the
time of the Peshitta translation. In my Syriac
class today, we studied the last 15 verses of
Matthew, chapter 24. Syriac QATAL is normally
used with past reference, but in Matthew 24:33
the QATAL form of the verb XZ) (to see) is used
with future reference. Similar uses of QATAL are
found elsewhere as well, and this shows that
Syriac QATAL is not a tense.
I do not say that students of Hebrew students
should not use discourse analysis. A small or
great measure of discourse analysis is necessary
in any linguistic study. But we should keep in
mind what discourse analysis can do and cannot
do. In my view, to understand the nature of the
verbal system of Classical Hebrew it is
completely useless.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>Dear List Members
>
>I want to invite your evaluation of the BH
>verbal system as proposed by Wolfgang Schneider
>and summarized below by John Sailhamer in his
>class lecture notes.
>
>"In the Hebrew verb system, tense is used to
>signal the orientation of the speaker to the
>listener...In Hebrew the choice of tense depends
>on whether the action is part of a conversation
>or part of a narration....In Hebrew there are
>two sets of tense systems: a primary tense and a
>secondary tense. The primary tense is used to
>express the main action of a passage in the
>Hebrew Bible. The primary tense has only two
>forms.
> The secondary tense has only one form. It
>is used to express actions which lie in the
>background of those actions expressed in the
>primary tenses. In the Hebrew Bible, these two
>tense systems have merged to form one complete
>system of tenses."
>
>He then identifies the primary tense for
>narrative as the wayyiqtol and the primary tense
>for discourse as the yiqtol. The qatal is
>secondary in both narrative and discourse. I can
>provide more details if anyone is interested, or
>even thinks this is a valid approach to the
>verb. It certainly is radically different from
>time and aspect models. It seeks to ask not
>"What type of action does a verb represent?",
>but rather What type of communication does the
>verb represent?".
>
>Your thoughts?
>Joseph Justiss
>_________________________________________________________________
>Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
>http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list