Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:


>Dear B-Haverim,
>
>The following post refers to the rules for discussion on the B-Hebrew list.
>
>
>The "I am that I am" thread has wandered into the field of New Testament
>theology in a manner that is acceptable on the B-Hebrew list because the
>discussion has included and required a search for a better understanding of
>the Hebrew Scriptures.  However, Rolf Furuli's "syllogism post" within the
>thread has indeed strayed from the mission of the B-Hebrew list in that it
>is entirely devoted to New Testament theology apart from the Hebrew
>Scriptures.  In other words, theology as a topic of discussion is not the
>problem per se; B-Hebrew can entertain discussion of theology as long as
>theological assertions are supported by the Hebrew Bible.  Discussion of
>whether and how Hebrew Scriptures may have been translated or utilized in
>the New Testament or other literature is also proper fare for this list.


Dear Brian (and the b-haverim),

Because you are one of the moderators I accept your decision, and will
allways explicitly include BH material in every post.  However, the
methodological question should not be clouded by the theological one.
There are all kinds of persons on b-hebrew, from the one who has just
started with Hebrew to the teacher. All are free to voice their opinion and
all are free to use methods of interpretation which are more or less sound.
I think it would be fine if all of us time and again looked at the way we
work and ask: Am I using a scientific methododlogy? Can I improve my
principles? On the basis of such questions do I think that the the
principles related to syllogisms are very important for those interested in
b-hebrew. I will return to that in another post.  Here I want to outline a
method for ascertaining whether a language has tenses or not, to illustrate
the importance of thinking systematically and of using a scientific
framework.

My basic principle is that some factors in the verbal system of a language
are semantic, i.e. uncancellable in any context, and others are pragmatic,
i.e. they may be cancelled in different contexts. My task is to find
whether *tense* is grammaticalized in bobiblical Hebrew, i.e. if there are
verb forms which in *all* contexts represent a particular tense, thus being
semantic and uncancellable.

The Swedish lingusit Osten Dahl (1985) "Tense and Aspect systems"
investigated 64 languages and found no language which had a verb form
marked for present tense, but present meaning was always expressed by
conversational pragmtic implicature. Any action occurs at a particular time
(event time, ET), and it is referred to by a speaker or writer (reference
time, RT). We also need a third parameter, namely, a deictic center (C),
which represent the point to which we relate our reference. This deictic
center (C) is often speech time, we refer to an event as either before or
after the moment when we are speakeing, or C may be "tomorrow" or
yesterday.  When reference time (RT) and the deictic center (C) coincides
we have present tense, when RT comes before C we have past tense, and when
RT comes after C, we have future tense.

Based upon the semantic/pragmatic foundation mentioned above, tense must be
viewed a two privative oppositions  (+ past) and (+ future). This means
that some verb forms are marked for past tense, and the other verb forms
are unmarked, or indifferent as to past tense. The verb forms which are
unmarked for past tense can be used in many ways including having past
meaning just as the marked forms. But when the unmarked forms have past
meaning, this is due to conversational pragmatic implicature, thus it can
be cancelled (the same which is said for past is also true for future).
What is described above is an abbreviated model for testing whether a
language has tenses or not. It is for instance excellent for testing
whether the past meaning ascribed to most wayyiqtols is semantic or just
conversational pragmatic implicature.

A simple test for the temporal nature of English verbs is to use time
adverbials. We may use the following events and states as examples (taken
from M. Broman Olsen), all of which are odd:

(1) Sue yawned tomorrow.*
(2) Sue yawns but not now.*
(3) Sue will yawn yesterday.*

(4) Sue was old tomorrow.*
(5) Sue is old, but not now.*
(6) Sue will be old yesterday.*

I have made a preliminary test with the Hebrew HAYYOM ("today", "now"). As
we have seen, past tense means that RT is *before* (C) and future tense
means that RT is *after* (C). The deictic center (C) in all examples is
HAYYOM, and this means that past-tense verbs and future-tense verbs cannot
be used in the clauses where (C) is HAYYOM, only verbs with present tense
or verbs lacking tense can be used in this context. Let us look at a few
examples:

QATAL USED WITH HAYYOM

 Deuteronomy 8:19. And if you forget the LORD your God and go after  other
gods and serve them  and worship them, I solemnly warn you (HA(IDOTI; LXX
has present: DIAMARTUROMAI) this day that you shall surely perish.

PARTICIPLE  USED WITH HAYYOM

Deuteronomy 11:26  Behold, I set (NOTEN) before you this day a blessing and
a curse:

YIQTOL AND WAYYIQTOL USED WITH HAYYOM

2. Samuel 3:8. Then Abner was (WAYYIXAR) very angry over the words of
Ish-bosheth, and said (WAYYOMER),  "Am I a dog's head of Judah? This day I
keep showing loyalty ()E(E:SE) to the house of Saul your father, to his
brothers, and to his friends, and have not given you (HIMCITIKF) into the
hand of David; and yet you charge me (WATTIPQOD, LXX has present:
EPIZHTEIS..) today with a fault concerning a woman.

 More examples could have been given, but when examples of qatal, yiqtol,
wayyiqtol and the participle can be found together with hayyom, they all
either represent present tense or are time indifferent. Particularly 2
Samuel 3:8 is interesting.  There are three wayyiqtols, two with past
meaning and one with present meaning, a fact which indicates that all
meanings are conversational pragmatic implicatures and not are semantic.
The last wayyiqtol is directly governed by hayyom, and the preceding yiqtol
is directly governed by another occurrence of hayyom.  Thus RT coincides
with C in both cases, and neither can there be any semantic difference
between the yiqtol and thge wayyiqtol nor can any of them indicate past
tense, but their present meaning must also be due to cenversational
pragmatic implicature.  We are fortunate to have a wayyiqtol in this verse,
as wayyiqtols seldom occur with adverbials such as hayyom because wa- is
also a particle.

Let me also mention another interesting test. I have studied the 112
occurrences of the phrase (AD HAYYOM HAZZE  ("until this day"). Here we
have a period with a definite end (Speech time=reference time=deictic
center). According to the privative definition of tense proposed above,
past tense should not be allowed in these sentences.  Yet the material
consists of  55 wayyiqtols, 43 qatals, 7 yiqtols,  5 participles, 2
infinitives and 4 nominal clauses!!!  None of these can represent past
tense, and when all these different forms can be used for the same time
period with the same (C) none of them can be tenses at all. The only
possible conclusion which I can see is that their meaning is due to
conversational pragmatic implicature.

We should never forget to strive to have a sound theoreticl framwork in our
work with Hebrew.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
Unioversity of Oslo