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 20:26:51 +0100

Dear Randall,


We have been over this many times in the past. But it seems to me that Kevin may be relatively new to the list. So when you ask him to ponder on something, he must know what the issues are.

The first example itself is clear. But in my view, it tells nothing about the nature of Hebrew verbs. The use of expressions, such as the use of MXR, are governed by linguistic convention; the word order can be decisive, and 52 examples represent very few examples. First if you show that WAYYIQTOL and QATAL never are used with reference to the future, you have a case.

The basic requirement for any scholar is to define his expressions. So I ask: The advice against an "aspect-only" view, is only meaningful if you define aspect. Please give a clear definition of aspect in Classical Hebrew, and tell us in clear terms what the difference is between the imperfective aspect and the perfective aspect.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli



Kevin:
What I learned in class is that both perfects and imperfects can have a
past, present and future tense. ... Watts' book
suggests the aspect notion over time/tense. He says perfects are completed
action and imperfects are continuous action.

Kevin, you might want to ponder on a BH datum:

Clauses with maHar 'tomorrow' never have 'qatal' or wayyiqtol' as
the main verb. Zero out of 52. That is fairly significant statistical
evidence that is against the prediction of 'aspect-only' or 'modal-
only' theories of the Hebrew verb.

While you are musing, please note
that I am not advocating 'time-only' either, I'm only pointing
out that time/tense seems to be involved in the underdifferentiated
Hebrew verb system, that is, underdifferentiated from an Indo-
Europeanan perspective: the Hebrew indicative only has a two-way
morphological distinction in simple indicative, two way distinction
in sequential-clauses (wyyqtl and wqtl), plus participles.


George:
Kevin,
It seems the book you've got uses an Aktionsart approach
('type of action'), which has been largely left behind in grammatical
analysis of Hebrew these days. It just doesn't work. Aspect is
definitely where you need to head.

I disagree on two fronts.
I suspect that the issue is one of definition of the metalinguistic
terminology rather than substance. And as mentioned above,
'aspect-only' is definitely not where someone should head.

Randall Buth

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Really Learn
_______________________________________________
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