Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning
  • Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 00:03:34 -0400


Dear Rolf,

If you want an answer to your questions, I will try to give you some
tentative ones according to my understanding, to clarify the points I
made in my previous postings. I think I may have come upon something
rather fundamental which you have missed, the principle behind the
choice of verb forms in clauses off the main time line - so please
read on carefully to my last paragraph below.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 02/10/1999 09:25


Dear Peter.

I still see no answer to my principal questions, so I have to repeat them,

In Jer 47:3...

PK: I assume you mean 47:1 as in previous postings.

..(and the other mentioned places) we have a telic event where the
predicate is a YIQTOL. A common denominator for almost all definitions of
aspect is that the imperfective aspect is a viewpoint that does not include
the end of an event. Is the end of NCH included in the YIQTOL in this
verse?...

PK: At the time of the main clause, i.e. when the word of YHWH came to
Jeremiah, Pharaoh's attack on Gaza was still future and therefore
incomplete.

..In that case, how can it be imperfective? And similarly with the
tense-view. The end is always included in a telic event expressed by a
finite verb in past tense. If YIQTOL is a non-past tense where the end is
not included, how can it be used in this situation when the end objectively
was terminated?

PK: Because that termination had not yet happened at the reference
point of the narrative here. Compare English: "Here he is. I said that
he would come." Here the English "would" relates to an event which is
objectively terminated (he has now come) but was future at the time of
the main clause "I said". In many languages (including NT Greek) the
indirect speech "he would come" is rendered by a straight future
tense, apparently this is the case also in Hebrew. Jer 47:1 is not
direct speech but the time relationships are analogous, so it is not
surprising that the verb forms used are analogous.

An explanation like: "This is because it is preceded by B+RM." is a
non-explanation, because you have not answered the questions "how" and
"why". The usual explanation for YIQTOLs with past meaning is that they are
durative...

PK: This is not my explanation, in this instance. I do not consider
this YIQTOL to have past meaning, but rather future "meaning" in the
sense that I have defined (though I would rather say that it occurs in
a future context as the YIQTOL does not necessarily in itself have the
semantic element of future).

..However, durativity is a semantic characteristic connected with the
Aktionsart of the verb, and a QATAL or an infinitive of a verb that is
semantically durative is just as durative as a YIQTOL (an explanation that
the durativity lasts for some time does not help much) And such
explanations completely impossible with telic events. The only way I am
able to explain NCH in Jer 47:1 is that *a part* of the action is focussed
upon, and that *the end is ignored*, just as if an infinitive was used.
This means that whether the end of an action in the past was reached or not
is not signalled by QATAL or YIQTOL (Although there are certain
preferences), but it is signalled by the context.

Please show *why* this conclusion is wrong, if that is your opinion, and
show *why* we can uphold an aspectual or a tense-view of the verbs and at
the same time use YIQTOLs to describe telic events in the past.

PK: I think I have already shown this one in a simplistic way.
Unfortunately I do not know the theoretical model which you use well
enough to express my point definitively in its terminology.

PK: To generalise the basic point I am making, it seems that in such
clauses, subordinate or simply off-line (as generally shown by not
being verb initial), the verb form reflects the temporal relationship
between that clause and the events of the main time line, and not the
temporal relationship between that clause and the objective deictic
point of view of the writer.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page