Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tenses - Deut 6:4

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tenses - Deut 6:4
  • Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:29:14 +1100

Hi George,

Thanks for your reply and continuing discussion.

A bit of clarification: I am not against an aspectual understanding of the BH verbal system per se. I think it quite clear that Hebrew moved from aspect to tense (see eg Andersen's 2000 ZAH article; John Cook's dissertation; etc). The debate is really where to position BH on this continuum. A primarily aspectual view of the verbal system is, in my opinion, unable to explain: a) declarative non-stative qatal default is absolute past; b)default anterior use of qatal in non-paratactic constructions; c) rhetorical/exaggerated "futures" with qatal (eg Isa 6:5); d) qatal for politeness (eg 1Kgs 15:19); e) qatal restricted in its use to the temporal modifiers 'ethmol/'emesh; f) yiqtol restricted in its use to the temporal modifiers `attah/machar. It is often asked that how can a so-called primarily tense marking form be used in all temporal spheres? (eg Waltke & O'Connor). However, a tense analysis is able to cope with this; see, eg, Rogland's monograph, Anstey's dissertation. However, the question can actually be framed the other way around, ie, how can so-called primarily aspect marking forms be used for both aspects? I say this because yiqtol, which is supposedly imperfective aspect, can be used perfectively (eg Gen 18:11) and qatal, which is supposedly perfective aspect, can be used imperfectively (eg Gen 38:9; Num 11:8; 21:9; Jud 2:18; 6:3; 2 Kgs 18:4). It is these types of issues which I have yet to see an aspectual analysis tackle. (I would love to be proved wrong on this and be pointed to the relevant literature.)

(As for Koine Greek, that's another matter entirely. I'd be interesting in having a look at Campbell's work when it comes out. Rodney Decker has a monograph making much the same claims, but in my opinion ends up with his findings due to the adoption of a faulty linguistic methodology at the start.)

Now concerning your proposal of a spatial aspect approach to the BH verbal system: is it that you see the "spatial" deriving form aspect, or something else? If the answer is "from something else" then that might be fine. But if you see the "spatial" derived from aspect then typologically this is questionable: spatial conceptualisation of verbal action is cross-linguistically derived from tense, not aspect.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Hi David!

Firstly, thanks for keeping me on my toes. Your observations are, as usual,
astute.

Yes, you are right to say that 'some' research points towards verbal aspect.
However, the interesting thing I am finding is that people working
independently of each other are coming up with similar conclusions regarding
verbal aspect. This, of course, does not mean that it is correct, but it
does mean it is worth investigating.

As for your query from 2005 (sorry, didn't realise I had not answered): I do
not think that time is grammaticalised in Biblical Hebrew. Time is, from
what I can see, indicated by context and/or deictic markers. As such, I do
see verbal aspect being grammaticalised in the construction of verb forms.
Is this unique to Biblical Hebrew? No, I don't think so. Con Campbell has
just completed a dissertation on verbal aspect in Koine Greek, and comes up
with very similar conclusions to the ones I'm making in Biblical Hebrew (it
should be published in the very near future). Of course this does open the
need to investigate whether verbal aspect is a feature of other Semitic
languages, especially close cognates of Biblical Hebrew. My suspicion (and
this is purely speculative), is that verbal aspect began to die as ancient
societies became more dependent on written records and those records were
kept indefinitely. Time, I suspect, became a governing factor. Nonetheless,
that speculation needs to be tested.

There is still a long way to go on this whole question, but so far the
explanatory power of verbal aspect is, in my opinion, quite impressive for
both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek -- enough to make for a working
hypothesis.



Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page