Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Opinions on J. Wash Watts "A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament"

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] Opinions on J. Wash Watts "A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament"
  • Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:35:30 +0100

Dear Kevin,

From the beginning of my Hebrew studies I had problems with understanding and accepting the explanations of Hebrew verbs. But I had no alternative to what I was taught. It was refreshing to read the grammar of Washington Watts and later the treatises of Alexander Sperber from 1937/38, and 1939; and his grammar from 1964. These works showed that the traditional view of Hebrew verbs had great weaknesses. It was after reading Washington Watts that I decided to make a thorough study of the issues myself. After my MA, I used ten years to study all the 80.000 finite and infinite verbs of the Tanakh, the DSS, Ben Sira, and the old Inscriptions. The result was a dissertation suggesting a completely new understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew.

I agree with George that it is important to distinguish Aktionsart from aspect. A part of this distinction is to have a clear definition of aspect. I have seen more than 20 different definition of aspect, so which one should we use? This is a weakness of many studies of Hebrew verbs: A particular aspect definition is chosen, and the verbs are seen through the glasses of this definition. It is obvious that different aspect definitions will lead to different interpretations and conclusions. Moreover, it seems that most students of Hebrew assume that aspect is a universal property, which means that aspect in English is the same as aspect in Hebrew. This is definitely not the case!

Is it possible to study Hebrew verbs without the straightjacket of a particular definition of aspect? Yes, it is! In linguistics there are parameters that are more fundamental than aspect, and these parameters are not language-dependent, but they are universal. These parameters were first described by H. Reichenbach in 1947, and they have been extensively used in linguistic studies since then. The parameters are "deictic center," "event time," and reference time." If we analyze Hebrew verbs on the basis of these three parameters, we will see particular patterns, and a definition of Hebrew aspects will be the result of such analyses. The parameters works for both aspect and tense, because aspect is the function of reference time and event time, and tense is the function of the deictic center and reference time.

A word of caution regarding tense: It is of paramount importance to distinguish between temporal reference (the time being construed on the basis of the context) and tense (the time that is an inherent property of the verb form). I am not aware of any Hebrew grammatical work that systematically has distinguished temporal reference from tense.

In my view, Hebrew is not more difficult than other languages. What makes it look difficult are the explanations of modern grammatical books. A student need not read many pages of Hebrew text before he or she observes verbs that contradict the explanations. What will be seen is that all verb forms can have past, present, and future reference. This is exactly what you and Karl have observed. Without going into detail, I will say that the Classical Hebrew verbs represent two aspects, YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL represent the imperfective aspect, and QATAL, and WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect. There are two reasons why all these forms can be used with past, present, and future reference, and that all of them can portray completed and incomplete situations:

1. The aspects have some properties that are similar and some properties that are mutually exclusive.

2. In some situations where a clear picture (details) of a situation need to be given, only one of the aspects can be used. In situations without a requirement of precision, both aspects can be used.

The last point can be illustrated by the difference between a specific phonetic transcription and a phonemic transcription. A specific phonetic transcription can both give the sounds and details about the articulation, whereas the phonemic transcription only may indicate the pronunciation, as far as the pronunciation distinguish between meanings. Several different phonetic transcriptions can be subsumed under a phonemic transcription. Let us assume that we have three different phonetic transcriptions of the same word, A1, A2, and A3, All three can be subsumed under the phonemic transcription AA of the word, which means that AA can represent each of the three phonetic transcriptions. But let us say that A3 in addition to expressing the broad pronunciation, also expresses the place in the mouth where the sounds are articulated, and a different pronunciation of one letter (e.g. clear "l" in contrast to dark "l"). If the writer wants to make these details visible, only A3 can be used. But if he only wants to make the pronunciation without details visible, AA can be used both for A1, A2, and A3. The reason for this situation is that AA and A3 have some common properties, but A3 has some properties that cannot be expressed by AA. Similarly, the aspects have some common properties, and each aspect has some properties that the other does not have. The choice of aspect, therefore, can depend on the requirement for precision in the verbal expression.
(For definitions, see http://www.antimoon.com/terms/phonemic_transcription.htm).


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli





Karl,

Thank you for sharing your comments.

You wrote:
It?s been a long time since I last looked at his work. I was taught
in class that the Qatal refers to past, the Yiqtal to future, and
participle to present. In Biblical Hebrew, that is clearly wrong. Is this
what you learned?

What I learned in class is that both perfects and imperfects can have a
past, present and future tense. That has troubled me ever since to the
extent that I wrote my own rule that perfects are almost always past and
imperfects are almost always future. That results in a few novel
translations compared to published English translations, especially when it
comes to prophetic or potentially prophetic statements. Watts' book
suggests the aspect notion over time/tense. He says perfects are completed
action and imperfects are continuous action. That seems to be what is
nominal teaching regarding tense in Greek. However, I learned Greek from
James Voelz and in his textbook/teaching he emphasizes aspect in an
entirely different way (present tense is actual focus on action, imperfect
tense is focus on connection, etc.). Watts seems to put the full time/tense
fully in control of context. That is unsatisfying to me. It seems to make
the language even less user friendly for native speakers and writers (of
old). In my beliefs regarding the origin of the text, it does not fit well
either. So, I don't really like the perfects and imperfects can be
past/present/future that I learned in class and read from Watts. Of course,
I'm an engineer in profession so I like things to be precise. I have to
laugh at my Hebrew teacher who said Hebrew was easy for engineers and
scientists to learn because it is so systematic and methodical. Without
specific tense and without vowels it seems to be more in the realm of
abstract art (that's a joke).

- Kevin Buchs
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page