Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:09:37 +0000

On 05/03/2007 16:23, Rolf Furuli wrote:
Dear Peter,

You paint a carricature of my position. In view of all the times we have
discussed Hebrew verbs, you should be able to do better. I do not deny
exceptions and a substandard use of language. What I challenge is ad hoc
explanations in order to save a hypothesis. Therefore I make a linguistic
demand that exceptions must be explained. For example, In the 19th century
QATAL was viewed as past tense, and at the end of the century, as past tense
or the perfective aspect. It was discovered that several QATALs had future
reference, and in order to save the theory, the "prophetic perfect" was
postulated, the action was completed in the mind of the prophet. (A. B.
Davidson (1894) "Hebrew syntax") is a good example. The view has later been
parroted by different grammarians, but I have never seen anyone proving the
claim.

Several quite reasonable explanations of this situation have been put forward, mostly based on the idea (for which there is good phonological evidence) that WAYYIQTOL comes from a quite different early Semitic verb form from regular YIQTOL.
The principle of a property being uncancellable is very simple: Even a
shoolboy understands that the clauses "I will come yesterday" and "I came
tomorrow" are ungrammatical. There is no purpose in trying to find a special situation where one of the clauses can be used.

"If I came tomorrow, I would be able to see him before he goes away the next day". This perfectly grammatical sentence proves that past tense is not uncancellable in English. Similarly there are perfectly grammatical constructions in which the past verb form in Hebrew is used with future reference, and vice versa. I don't see the difference in principle; if one is semantic, the other is semantic, if one is pragmatic, the other is pragmatic, or maybe this is not a meaningful distinction.

In fact the reason why "If I came tomorrow..." is grammatical is that this is not really a past tense, but a subjunctive, but in English the past and the subjunctive have acquired almost identical forms. But the forms are distinct for the verb "to be", so "If I were in town tomorrow..." is historically more correct, not "If I was in town tomorrow..." Nevertheless, many speakers would say the latter because this subjunctive distinction is fading away. This is very similar to the evidence, not always consistent, from certain verb forms e.g. lamed-he verbs that WAYYIQTOL is "apocopated" which, according to a very plausible explanation, means that it comes from an originally separate verb paradigm which has mostly merged with regular YIQTOL.

If QATAL represents past tense, ...

I am not arguing this, rather more like that QATAL is perfective aspect. I think we agree on this one, although we might disagree on precise definitions. My disagreement with you is largely on WAYYIQTOL, which I see as also perfective and semantically as well as morphologically distinct from imperfective YIQTOL.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page