Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

<snip>

> 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

<snip>

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

Dear Rolf, I'm not quite sure how valuable this analysis will be.  You see, 
although I
*understand* the your definition of tense, I'm not quite sure I *agree* with 
it.  By
dividing reference time into three non-overlapping subsets, you make a very 
neat
model, but I'm not sure it's realistic.  To declare a verb that focusses on 
the past
to be "non-past tense" because it happens to still be occurring at the 
deictic center
could well run counter to many peoples perception of the term "past tense".  
The first
clause of "They called me, 'Paul,' until today, and I will continue be called 
'Paul'
in the future," is past tense by many people's definition.  I'm not so sure 
it is by
yours.

To remind us what you quoted from Dahl back on January 2: 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.

Anyway, for what it is worth, here's the response to your request:

> 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.
>

The English translation uses the time of writing as the deictic center, and 
the verbal
action expressly takes place prior to that center, with the implication that 
it
continues to occur coincidental and probably after the center.  In the 
Hebrew, I would
suggest that C is the time of the mainline event, translated, "and he had 
thirty
sons," and that RT comes after C, up to the limit of the time of writing.  
Try a
translation, "And there was to him thirty sons riding on thirty asses, and to 
them
[were] thirty cities, they will be called Havvoth-jair [even] 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."
>

Gen 32:5 in the Hebrew.  The quotation is the portion under question.  
English has C
the time of the instruction to the messenger (or perhaps the time of the 
passing on of
the message to Esau).  RT for both the X-qatal and wayyiqtol are explicitly 
prior to
C.  They are implicitly prior to C as well, as Jacob and Laban had already 
parted
ways.  Hebrew could be the same, but I would not be surprised if, as I 
posited in a
side comment in the past, Hebrew uses a narrative convention similar to much 
of
English and American literature were events in the past are described as if 
they were
occurring in the present.  If this is the case, then C for the X-qatal would 
still be
the time of instruction and RT would be prior to that, but C for the 
wayyiqtol would
be the time of the wayyiqtol, and RT coincides with it.  C is limited 
expressly (and
implicitly) by the time of the instruction.

> 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."
>

The English translation treats C and RT as coinciding, C being the time of 
writing,
because of the *implied* continuation of the dwelling, but it would have been 
just as
justified to treat RT as prior to C by translating the verb as "dwelt".  The
justification for this "past tense" treatment is the fact that that no 
explicit
statement is made about the current or future relationship of the two 
peoples.  Of
course, if my position expressed concerning the wayyiqtol found in Gen 32 is 
solid, C
in this case is the time of the wayyiqtol, which extends from sometime after 
Moses
took over the land until (explicitly) the time of the writing (and 
implicitly, even at
the time of writing.)  RT would then coincide with C.  [Are you getting the 
picture
that I tend to treat the wayyiqtol as a past event treated like a present?]

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

Follow me closely on this on.  Explicitly, both English and Hebrew have C as 
a moving
point that comes to, but does not include, the time of writing.  Implicitly, 
the time
of writing is included.  And RT moves to coincide with C.

These are just my thoughts, based on gut feel, and I reserve the right to 
retract them
after I mull over them a while.

hth,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph