Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:



Dear Rolf,
>
>wow, thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this thread!
>
>you wrote:
>> Dear Lee,
>>
>> I wrote in a post about a week ago that  stativity is not a semantic
>> property for verbs in Hebrew,
>
>how do you know?  can you give me a proof-text in which it is impossible.
>i'm very interested because i believe very nearly just this:  the qatal
>intrinsically means  "the state of the subject at the time being talked
>about."  it's very like a perfect; it's very adjectival. (btw, i know the
>difference between perfect and perfectIVE.)
>
>thanks, Rolf, especially since i know you've been very busy.    i hope i
>have caught you before you might be sick of it!  ;-)
>



Dear Bryan,

Once again I will refer to the dissertation of Mary Broman Olsen. It is
definitely the best work I have ever seen, as far as  methods for sorting
out what is semantic and what is pragmatic is concerned. Her principle is
that meanings that can be cancelled without contradiction or reinforced
without redundancy are conversational pragmatic implicature and those that
cannot, represent true semantic meaning.

As to the Vendlerian scheme of State, Activity, Accomplishment, Achievement
and Semelfactive she sorts out three universal properties: + durative (the
event/state goes on), + dynamic (there is change) and + telic (the end is
conceptually included). Let me quote her regarding stativity:

"Comrie (1976:49) also observes that "stative" verbs may have both dynamic
and stative interpretations. for example, my theasaurus "stands on the
bookshelf" but in various positions, a dynamic interpretaion, according to
Comrie. In contrast, my bookshelf "stands against the wall" in the same
position (stative)...States, therefore, have both stative and dynamic
interpretations. In contrast (+dynamic) verbs are allways interpreted as
dynamic, independent of stative constituents or pragmatic contexts."

Mari's observation is generally accepted by linguists and it also holds for
Hebrew. The verb (MD, just as the English "stand" can both be given a
stative and a dynamic interpretation, and the same is true for other
"stative" verbs in Hebrew. Stativity, therefore, is not an uncancelable
property, and it is difficult to use it as a part of fundamental
definitions. The three properties mentioned above are enough for a
description of the "Aktionsart" or "procedural characteristics" of verbs.

Proceeding further with Mari's excellent methodology, she notes that
present tense generally is not grammaticalized in the languages of the
world. As to tense, she uses + past and + future as uncancellable semantic
meanings, and her tense model is privative and not equipollent just as her
forementioned model. All these five characteristics (+ durative, + dynamic,
+ telic, + past, and + future) are "universal" characteristics in the sense
that they are clearcut and understandable for anybody and any language can
be described by help of them. (this is not the case with her definition of
aspect, as I will return to).

In her quest to find out whether Greek has grammaticalized tenses, she uses
the principle that both + past and + future are semantic properties and
thus are uncancellable. Let me quote her, p 217 "Verbs with a feature in
all contexts are semantically marked for that feature, whereas verbs with
the feature in only some contexts are unspecified for it." She found no
example that Greek imperfect could indicate an event which was not +past
and concluded that imperfect represents the imperfective aspect and past
tense. However, she found that aorist expressed many situations which were
not + past and concluded that it represents the perfective aspect but not
past tense (p 226: "Since past reference is cancellable for aorist and
present forms, their temporal reference must be attributed to pragmatic
implicature and not to semantic tense."

I use the above mentioned 5 fundamental semantic properties in my study of
Hebrew, and this results in conclusions which are testable. That is one
reason why I reject Randall's linguistic model because it is untestable. To
speak of the conjugations as tense-mood-aspect systems and choosing one or
more of them at will in different contexts is in my mind the same as
linguistic anarchy. Let me add that my model also is open to exceptions
(this is the reason why Mari uses the expression "conversational pragmatic
implicature" and not just "pragmatic implicature")

When I claim that preterits represent past tense in all contexts and
futures represent future tense in all contexts, I add the qualification
that because of linguistic convention, in some instances can preterits
seemingly be non-past and futures seemingly non-future. The semantic
meaning + past or + future are still there, but there is a convention that
seemingly cancels the semantic meaning (for instance irreal conditional
sentences). However, to follow a sound scientific methodology, such
situations should be completely accounted for and not just assumed.
Regarding Hebrew, this means that the 10 per cent of the wayyiqtols that
have non-past meaning do not prove that wayyiqtol is not a past tense;
their non-past meaning can be due to linguistic convention. But this must
be demonstrated, not assumed! And similarly, the 90 per cent of the
wayyiqtols with past meaning do not prove that wayyiqtol is preterit, the
past meaning may be due to conversational pragmatic implicature. But this
must be demonstrated, not just assumed! This is science in contrast with
hearsay and unfounded assumptions!

Let me also say a word about aspect. Again Mari gives the best description
I have ever seen of the difference between tense ( a grammaticalization of
location in time/ deictic time) and aspect (non-deictic time). Aspect
highlights a part of the event time, either its nucleus or coda
(end-point), but tells nothing about where the event is in relation to a
deictic center (such as for instance speech time). Tense, on the other
hand, shows where the event is in releation to a deictic center (before,
coinciding or after). Her model is excellent for English. However, while
this definition of aspect is clear-cut and logical, it is not universal (
as Mari assumes) as her other five characteristics. In particular will this
definition not fit Hebrew. To understand the different nature of Hebrew
aspect, however, we cannot do anything better than start with Mari' s
definition and try to apply it to Hebrew.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo