Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Jonathan Robie wrote:


>>Paul Zellmer wrote:
>>>Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>[SCHNIPPELE!]
>
>>>> 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).
>



Dear Jonathan,

Just a short definition in behalf of readers not familiar with the terms:
Event time (ET) = the time during which a situation holds or develops.
Reference time (RT) = The part of the event the writer/speaker points to
(it can be the beginning, middle or end or the whole event).
Deictic center (C) = The point in relation to which we decide whether
something is past, present or future (It can be speech time or "tomorrow"
or "yesterday".)

The interplay of tense and aspect in English which Mari Broman Olsen
describes is almost perfect, but this beautiful picture does not fit
Hebrew.   Mari's discussion of what is semantic and what is pragmatic and
her definition of tense are universal, but aspect is a more elusive animal.
Mari's view (and it is very important to learn this before discard it in
connection with Hebrew) is that aspect represents the internal (and
non-deictic) time of an event; the  RT of the imperfective aspect is the
nucleus of the event and the RT of the perfective aspect is the coda
(end-point). In my view, the Hebrew aspect has nothing to do with time and
is completely different from the English aspect. Look at the two verses
below from Numbers. The verbs are imperfective (YIQTOLS) but they cover the
whole ET from beginning to end. This means according to the traditional
definition that the imperfective aspect is bounded. We could perhaps argue
for unboundedness by postulating iterativity or habituality, but both
YIQTOLS in the verses below are stative so that does not work There are a
host of similar examples. Also the passages below militate against the
traditional view of aspect.

(3)  Num. 9:15,21 On the day that the tabernacle was set up, the cloud
covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony; and at evening it was
(YIQTOL) over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning. And
sometimes the cloud remained (YIQTOL) from evening until morning; and when
the cloud was taken up in the morning, they set out, or if it continued for
a day and a night, when the cloud was taken up they set out.
>
>>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.

ET: From the days of Jair until speech time, and still continuing (they did
not lose their name when Judges were written.)
RT: Speech time
C:  Speech time
>
>Rolf, do you consider the English past tense to be a true past tense? In
>English, do you think that the phrase "until this day" extends the time of
>the verb "called" to include the deictic center (also known as the time of
>narration)?

Yes, yes
>
>How does the aspect of the Hebrew YIQTOL differ from the English past tense
>under influence of the adverbial phrase of time in this example? Actually,
>can you just take this question and extend it to each of the following
>examples?

The adverbial does not add anything to the meaning  og the YIQTOL, but by
help of it, its meaning becomes more visible. The YIQTOL, QATAL, WAYYIQTOL
and the participle all cover the ET until C, and the ET at least  in three
of the examples continues after C. That all these forms cover the same
period with little if any evident difference in meaning, suggests that
neither of them are tenses.
>
>>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."

ET: More than 20 years until speech time. I take the ET of both the QATAL
and the YIQTOL to be identical.
RT: Speech time
C:  Speech time
>>
>>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."

ET: An unspecified number of years until speech time, and still continuing.
RT: Speech time
C:  Speech time
>>
>>2Kings 17:34 To this day they do (participle) according to the former 
>>manner.

Three participles in these verses covers the same ET.
 ET: An unspecified number of years until speech time, and still continuing.
RT: Speech time
C:  Speech time
>

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo