Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Michel on the Verb in the Psalms

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Michel on the Verb in the Psalms
  • Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:48:31 +0200

Dear Joseph,

The work of Michel is a "must" for students of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. He is one of the few scholars who have managed to break the straightjacket of the traditional approach to Hebrew verbs.

One strength of Michel's works is that he challenged the long-held axiom that the nature of Hebrew verbs could only be found by narrative texts. The fact is that the real nature of the verbs, for example the WAYYIQTOLs, can NOT be found in narrative sequences, because such sequences are molded after a strict form that hides the nature of the verbs. Verbs in a typical narrative has past reference and one action follows the previous action. Because of the strict form, we cannot know whether the past references are semantic (being an intrinsic part of the verb form) or pragmatic (being caused by the context). By definition a narrative verb form has past reference regardless of which verb form is used. In Phoenician, for example, infinitive absolutes are used as the narrative verb, but they have no intrinsic past tense. Michel chose the Psalms as his corpus, and that is a very good choice.

Michel's assumption was that a study of the use of YIQTOL and QATAL, that is, the polar opposition between these forms, could help him determine their meaning. His conclusion is that there is no semantic difference between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTL, both denote consequence or dependence. And similarly, there is no difference between QATAL and WEQATAL, but Perfect " reports an event which stands in no dependent relationship but which is important in itself." (p. 143)

Michel's arguments against the traditional four-component model, and his examples are very fine. A basic weakness of almost all studies of Semitic verbs is that they start with a particular definition of the aspects, and this definition is forced upon the Hebrew verbal system, so to speak. Michel has avoided this trap, and his definition of the verb forms is a result of his studies of his corpus. However, his definitions are difficult to test, and in my view they are too general to be really meaningful.

Aspects are different in different languages, and only a cursory comparison of Hebrew and English verbs, shows that English aspects are very different from Hebrew aspects. A very fine approach, therefore would be to use parameters that are universal, and on this basis study the Hebrew verbal system without any preconceived conditions. A set of such universal parameters do exist, namely, event time, reference time, and the deictic center. Tense (grammaticalization of location in time) is the relationship between the deictic center and reference time, and aspect is the relationship between event time and reference time. Thus, tense represents deictic time, and aspect represents non-deictic time. A study of any verbal system by the help of these parameters may give good results. and the advantage is that we need not use any preconceived definitions.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

PS. While I was preparing to send my post, I got Randall's post. And I would like to make some comments: Michel does not only deal with syntax but also with verb meaning. Contrary to Randall I am not aware of the existence of the strange breed of animals called "poetic verbs". I am not aware of any other language where the *meaning* of a verb form is different in poetry and prose (What about English, for example?) It is true that in poetry different devices are used that normally lack in prose. These may influence the word order. But they do not change the verb meaning! We should remember that not only the so-called poetic books in the Tanakh are written as poetry, but also a great part of the prophets and other books. We cannot approach 40% of the Tanakh with the view that the verbs here have a different meaning than the verbs in the other 60%. But all these books can be read on the basis of exactly the same lexical and semantic approach. I would also add that in my opinion Michel's conclusions regarding the two-component model of Hebrew can be applied to the whole Tanakh.

RF







Has anyone read Diethelm Michel's work on tense and syntax in the Psalms? If so, what are your assessments of his conclusions about the function of the verb forms.



Joseph Justiss
_________________________________________________________________






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page