Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal system

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal system
  • Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:14:21 -0700

Dear List,
Recently we had a discussion over Aspect versus Tense, etc. The article below
copied verbatim from John Hobbin's blog is very interesting:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/07/a-tenseprominent-analysis-of-the-biblical-hebrew-verbal-system.html#more

For those of us who are not as versed (pun intended) in linguistic theory,
would those of you on this who are please comment on the article by Matthew
Anstey and the comments of John Hobbins?

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System
Matthew Anstey kindly sent me a copy of his programmatic essay, hot off the
press, entitled “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse
grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. The essay is lucid, fully
engages the field of linguistics, and is respectful of perspectives at odds
with its own - trademark qualities of Anstey’s scholarship. To whet your
appetite, I will quote his key conclusions, add a few titles to his status
quaestionis summary, and intersperse observations of my own.

Anstey offers a tense-prominent analysis of the verbal system of Biblical
Hebrew. Here is the outline of his essay: 1. Introduction (825-26); 2. The BH
verbal system (826-34); 3. An FDG analysis of QV [a functional discourse
grammar analysis of BH qatal] (835-39); 4. Conclusion (840-41); Footnotes
(841-44). In this post, I take a look at Part 2.1-2.2.2.

2. The BH verbal system

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The multifunctionality of qatal

2.2.1 Narration

2.2.2 Narratives

2.2.3 Conditional and hypothetical clauses

2.2.4 Polite QVs

2.2.5 Proverbial clauses

2.2.6 Future QVs

2.3 Summary of QV functions

Anstey adopts the position that BH qatal (827) “has Past as its core meaning,
for the following straightforward reason: in the range of functions discussed
below, Past is clearly the default interpretation in narrative and reported
speech. The other uses occur in much more restricted constructions and
contexts” (827).

The wayyiqtol and yiqtol, according to Anstey, are not as problematic (827):

Of the three finite verbs, QV [qatal] has the most puzzling range of
functions. In contrast, NV is analyzed almost unanimously as a simple Past
Verb, and the Nonpast yiqtol, although also multifunctional, has a range of
functions that is typical of nonpast forms, namely, various imperfective and
modal nuances, as well as habitual and generic uses.

[I’m not sure that the range of functions of qatal in ancient Hebrew is any
more puzzling than, say, those of the aorist in ancient Greek. But then, I
understand the range of functions of qatal to be less scattered than Anstey
does (see below). My other reaction to the quoted paragraph is that one needs
to think in terms of four principal finite verbs in ancient Hebrew, with the
inclusion of the weqatal pattern.]

Anstey distinguishes between narrative [“written speech”] and narration
[“direct speech”]. Key graph (827):

In narration, which in BH is direct speech in written narrative, QV [qatal]
typically functions in Main and Complement Clauses as a past or present
perfect tense for Nonstative Verbs and as a present tense for Stative Verbs.
The choice between past or present perfect in translation is often arbitrary.
In Relative Clauses, QVs function as anterior, relative to the tense of the
main Verb (Zevit 1998).

[As Anstey himself makes clear, his “Stative Verb” category does not
reference morphology. Anstey makes a functional distinction when he parses
ידעתי in ידעתי כי נתן יהוה לכם את־הארץ ‘I know יהוה has given the land to
you’ (Josh 2:9) as a Present Stative.

The distinction between states and occurrences is not always clear-cut
extra-linguistically, in objective reality. Linguistically, it only gets
worse. The way situations are conceptualized and their properties
morphologized and/or grammaticalized with particular verbs is, almost by
definition, systematic in part only. For example, an important class of
stative verbs in a number of languages is that of cognition, emotion, and
attitude. In ancient Hebrew, some members of this class, like אהב and שנא,
are marked morphologically (in some, not all forms); other members, ידע
included, are not. But ידע is marked as a stative grammatically, I would
argue, when it occurs in the qatal with imperfective meaning (as in the above
example, Josh 2:9), just as similar verbs in English occur in the simple
present with imperfective meaning: “I believe he took a wrong turn;” “She
knows where her son is.” “She knows” is grammatically marked by deployment of
the simple present such that it refers to a state with a past, present, and
imperfective component.

If a past occurrence were in view, it would be rendered as follows: “She knew
where her son was.” The example shows that verbs of this class can also be
used to refer to occurrences.

‘Stance’ or ‘position’ verbs are also dual use. Statively, again expressed
with a simple present: “The temple stands in the valley below.” If a ‘stance’
verb is used to refer to an occurrence, a progressive is preferred: “He is
standing outside.”

Still, the conceptual distinction between states and occurrences is easily
muddled, at least for those whose first language is English, because states
in English are sometimes grammaticalized with a simple present but often
construed as an occurrence and grammaticalized with a present perfect.

A present perfect grammaticalization is not available in ancient Hebrew.
Rather, BH qatal, like the aorist in ancient Greek, expresses either past
tense relative to a particular point of reference or omnitemporality (of more
than one kind, states included). BH qatal maps onto English in terms of a
variety of past tenses, the simple present for states, and a variety of modal
expressions for (in the non-technical sense) omnitemporality in conditions.
In the following examples, the qatals (translation equivalents italicized)
are not (1) simple Past Verbs (in Anstey’s terminology), but (2) relative
past tenses or (3) “omnitemporals” (statives). However, the distinction
between (1)-(3) is etic rather than emic, in my opinion, with respect to
ancient Hebrew. Emically, qatal is always and simply a past tense with
respect to a particular point of reference.

הַדְרִיכֵנִי בִּנְתִיב מִצְוֹתֶיךָ

כִּי־בֹו חָפָצְתִּי

Lead me in the path of your commands,
for therein I delight. (Ps 119:35)

וְאֶעֱנֶה חֹרְפִי דָבָר

כִּי־בָטַחְתִּי בִּדְבָרֶךָ

And I will answer my taunter with a word,
for I trust in your word. (Ps 119:42)

גַּל מֵעָלַי חֶרְפָּה וָבוּז

כִּי עֵדֹתֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי

גַּם יָשְׁבוּ שָׂרִים בִּי נִדְבָּרוּ

עַבְדְּךָ יָשִׂיחַ בְּחֻקֶּיךָ

Roll away from (their position) over me taunt and abuse,
for your precepts I keep.
Princes meet [lit., sit] and are outspoken against me;
your servant will reiterate your rulings. (Ps 119:22-23)

טָפְלוּ עָלַי שֶׁקֶר זֵדִים

אֲנִי בְּכָל־לֵב אֶצֹּר פִּקּוּדֶיךָ

טָפַשׁ כַּחֵלֶב לִבָּם

אֲנִי תּוֹרָתְךָ שִׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי

The arrogant smear me with lies;
I on my part will wholeheartedly keep your decrees.
Their heart is thick like fat;
I on my part take pleasure in your direction. (Ps 119:70-71)

יְבֹאוּנִי רַחֲמֶיךָ וְאֶחְיֶה

כִּי־תוֹרָתְךָ שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי

May your mercies reach me, and I live,
for your direction is my source of pleasure. (Ps 119:77)

יְרֵאֶיךָ יִרְאוּנִי וְיִשְׂמָחוּ

כִּי לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי

Those who fear you see me and rejoice
that I place my hope in your word. (Ps 119:74)

Note how the כי complementizer consistently introduces a qatal.]

Anstey remarks as follows about narrative (“written speech”): “Unlike [oral]
narration, the basic past tense verb of [written] narrative is the NV
[wayyiqtol]” (829). NVs dominate written narrative and “indicate move
continuations,” whereas “QVs in narrative primarily indicate move
transitions, that is, the beginning and end of paragraphs (Heller 2004)”
(830). He also notes: “in Main Declarative Clauses, BH signals argument focus
by fronting (van der Merwe and Talstra 2002-2003), again excluding NV from
initial position” (830).

[That might be restated a little more neutrally as follows: wayyiqtols are
the workhorse of narrative in ancient Hebrew; qatals serve to open, close,
and summarize narrative units; more generally, to topicalize or change focus.

The above restatement is close to Anstey’s concluding overview of “Functions
of QV in Narrative”: “start, end, summary, topicalisation, focus” (834). ]

One of the absolute strengths of Anstey’s scholarship is his penchant for
formulating testable hypotheses. A key example (832):

Although QVs [qatals] appear in [written] narrative and NVs (wayyiqtols]
appear in [oral] narration (Example 3), there are no examples of narratives
dominated by QVs, even though QVs dominate most narrations. And narration
never begins with a NV, even in cases where it is dominated by NVs.

[The statement “QVs dominate most [oral] narrations” is testable. Is it true?
If one compares like with like, that is, examples of oral narration in
written BH with examples of written BH narrative pure and simple of about
the same length and about the same degree of plot development, the
distinction between oral and written narrative, I think, breaks down. The
long oral narrations contained in Pss 78, 105, 106, for example, are
dominated by wayyiqtols, even if yiqtols which function no differently than
wayyiqtols occur in Ps 78. Jotham’s elaborate parable in Judg 9:8-15, another
example of oral narration, is also dominated by wayyiqtols. A further set of
oral narrations which to my mind suggest that wayyiqtol is just as connatural
to oral narration as to written narrative insofar as move continuations are
substantial to the telling of a past event is contained in Job 1:14-19.]

To be continued.

Bibliography

Christo H. J. van der Merwe and Eep Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The
Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features,” ZAH 15/16
(2002-2003) 68-107; Ziony Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical
Hebrew (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998)



  • [b-hebrew] A Tense-Prominent Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal system, Bryant J. Williams III, 08/02/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page