Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Paul Zellmer wrote:




>Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> When I ask the question: Does biblical Hebrew have tense?, I use "tense" in
>> its linguistic meaning which I have defined. Past tense is before the
>> deictic center and future tense is after the deictic center; neither of
>> them includes the deictic center. This means none the 55 wayyiqtols, 43
>> qatals, 7 yiqtols and  5 participles which are found in clauses with the
>> phrase  (AD HAYYOM HAZZE  ("until this day") are *past tense*. This is so
>> because all include the deictic center (the time of writing). It may be
>> argued that the Hebrew forms include both what in English is expressed by
>> past tense and by perfect. But if this is true, the Hebrew forms are not
>> past tense, because past tense per definition cannot include the deictic
>> center.
>
>Rolf,
>
>I purposely kept myself from responding to this thread *until this day*
>because the
>arguments were so raw (please read that, unreduced) and the conclusions
>were so
>philosophical that it was hard to find a specific conclusion with
>supporting evidence
>to grab hold of.  But this one paragraph has finally shown where your
>logic is falling
>short.
>
>Even assuming that linguistic theory limits past tense by not allowing the
>inclusion
>of the deictic center, a definition which I am not yet sold on, `aD HaYYoM
>HaZZeH does
>not specifically require that the action be on-going.  `aD is a limiter.
>It states
>nothing about the activity occuring *at* HaYYoM HaZZeH.  Rather, it
>describes the
>activity *up to that point*.  Rolf, it is not the equivalent of "now."
>It's the
>equivalent of "*until* now."  What is actually happening or not happening
>"now" is not
>expressed (although idiomatic use may allow it to be implied.)  Therefore
>the phrase
>would not prevent a verb form from being past tense, because `aD is not
>necessarily
>inclusive.
>
>Please do not interpret me to say that the Hebrew verb carries the
>linguistic sense of
>tense.  I am merely pointing out that your touchpoint is not saying what
>you claim it
>to be saying, so your conclusions on verbforms used with it are at least
>dubious.
>
>Your method may be sound, but you have at least one glaring problem in your
>assumptions.
>

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your input. I am at present doing some case studies in MT by
way of induction, in order to gather material to form a hypothesis which
can be tested against the whole MT. I therefore appreciate all kinds of
criticism.

I agree that AD HAYYOM HAZZE is not the equivalent of HAYYOM, and I was not
assuming that in my argument. Before our discussion can be meaningful, we
need to define our parameters.

My definition of tense is as follows:

Past tense = reference time is before the deictic center
Present tense = reference time coincides with the deictic center
Future tense = reference time is after the deictic center

I do not assume that Hebrew is similar to English and that we can judge
Hebrew in the light of English. To the contrary, I claim that the worst
possible starting point for understanding the aspects both of Greek and
Hebrew is to assume that English aspect is similar to Greek and Hebrew
aspect. However, we must have a good grasp of English grammar before we
study a foreign language, and to *compare* Hebrew with English is fine.

In the examples below, please tell me where the deictic center is, and
describe the relationship between it and the event time.

Judg. 10:4 And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty asses; and they had
thirty cities, called (YIQTOL) Havvoth-jair to this day, which are in the
land of Gilead.

Gen. 32:4 instructing them,  "Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says
your servant Jacob,  'I have sojourned (QATAL) with Laban, and stayed
(WAYYIQTOL) until now."

Josh. 13:13 "Yet the people of Israel did not drive out the Geshurites or
the Ma-acathites; but Geshur and Maacath dwell (WAYYIQTOL) in the midst of
Israel to this day."

2Kings 17:34 To this day they do (participle) according to the former manner.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo