Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Paul Zellmer wrote:


>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.
>

Dear Paul,

I do not think my definition of tense is problematic - this is the standard
linguistic definition - I understand you to mean that what is problematic
is how strictly we shall apply it to the material. In other words, can we
think of past-tense verbs with non-past meaning? My answer is yes, and I
suppose that such situations are found in all languages. This does not mean
that the term "past tense" is meaningless, because in English and
Norwegian, for instance, a verb marked for past tense will in the majority
of its occurrences signal a situation which occured before the deictic
center, and only in special cases will it signal another meaning.  What we
ought to do, is to look for rules and design tests to see whether
particular Hebrew verb formes code for tense or not. To folow a sound
methodology, we should not when we find a WAYYIQTOL OR QATAL  with non-past
meaning just say it is an exception. We should be able to show *why* it is
an exception.  My comments to Jonathan cover some of what you have written
below



>
>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?]


If wayyiqtol is treated as a present why could it not be completely time
indifferent? Do you have good arguments for WAYYIQTOL being different from
YIQTOL? How in the world can a simple conjunction have such a tremendous
transforming power? Has anybode explained this satisfactorily?



>
>> 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.


I have never heard of a moving C before. Is this a novel thought?

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

>
Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo