Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dave:

Rolf wrote:
>> When there is so much confusion, why don't you use modern linguistic
>> principles to create a model that can differentiate between what is
>> "semantic meaning" and what is "conversational pragmatic implicature" in
>> each verb form?  You can get such a model for less than $ 70, because Mari
>> Broman Olsen has outlined an excellent model which can be applied to Hebrew
>> verbs.
>
>That's pretty much what I try to do with my transformational
>approach.  Can you give us some more information about this
>"model" you speak of?  It sounds fascinating.

Different approaches in the study of Hebrew verbs may contribute to our
understanding of the system. However, when we try to find the fundamental
meaning of the conjugations, and whether there are four or two, there is no
better approach than to come as close as possible to the principle of
minimal pairs. If there is just one difference between two words (e.g.
"bit" and "bat") it is easy to explain the semantic difference between
them. The explanatory power of a view decreases proportionally with the
number of factors that must be accounted for.  Niccacci's system, for
instance, while giving a very fine insight of patterns in the use of verbs,
is completely useless to explain verbal meaning.  Broman Olsen's system, is
the diametrical opposite of Niccacci's system. Her principle is to find
uncanceellable "meaning atoms" (properties, the meaning of which will not
change under any circumstances). A study of the verbal system based on
these semantic meanings, is very close to a "minimal pair"- approach.

As to Aktionsart, there are three uncancellable properties: dynamicity
(change), durativity and telicity. Punctuality and stativity represent
conversational pragmatic implicature. As to tense (a deictic use of time)
she uses the two properties  +past and +future. As to Aspect she uses the
properties +perfective and +imperfective. The system is privative and not
equipollent. In a quest for the meaning of the Hebrew conjugations the
system has several advantages because it helps us differentiate between
pragmatic and semantic meaning and because it shows the difference between
the deictic nature of tense and the nondeictic nature of aspect, and at the
same time it describes the relationship between aspect and time. This last
point is very important, because it helps us to find whether aspect in
Hebrew has the same properties as aspect in English.  Sourse: Mary Broman
Olsen: "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect",
(1997) New York: Garland Publishing Inc.



>>
>> Just to avoid misunderstanding: I do not think that the Masoretes
>> manipulated the text in any way: they were extremely careful copyists. But
>> their pointing of the forms that we call "wayyiqtol" which evidently was
>> done on a non-grammatical foundation, were by the first Hebrew grammarian
>> from the 9th/10th century onward interpreted in a way that made wayyiqtol
>> into a distinctive conjugation. If this is correct, the Masoretes, by
>> following their phonetic laws, unintentionally laid the foundation for a
>> four-component verbal model, but they did not invent it.
>
>Just to clarify in my own mind: does this mean you don't believe
>the WP is a distinct verbal form?  Where do you believe the
>Masoretes got their phonetic patterns from?  Also, how close
>would you say your view is to Loprieno's?

No, WP is not a distinct verbal form, it simply is a yiqtol with a
conjunction.  Jerome wrote regarding the Jewish pronunciation of vowels
that "the same words are realized with different (vowel) sounds and accents
in accordance with the will of the reader and regional distinctions." I do
not know from where the Masoretes got their phonetic patterns, but the
worst possible choice to mark a phonemic difference would be to use shewa
and patah, and I doubt that the use of these vowels was meant to mark two
different ciónjugations.  There are several differences between the view of
Loprieno and myself, the principal one is the definition of aspect.

>> Some statisticts: Looking at qatals with prefixed waw in 1st and 2nd person
>> singular, I found 1637 examples in BHS. Of these, 1222 had ultimate stress
>> (including 83 of the lamed aleph and lamed he groups), and 415 had
>> penultimate stress (including 278 of the lamed aleph and lamed he groups).
>> Of the verbs with ultimate stress 1082 evidently have future meaning, and
>> of the verbs with penultimate stress 148 evidently have future meaning.
>>
>> The fact that 12 per cent of the weqatals with penultimate stress do not
>> have a future meaning and that 36 per cent of the weqatals with penultimate
>> stress have future meaning accords with Dave's suggestions above.
>
>Fascinating (and encouraging!).  Are the details published
>somewhere?  Part of the problem with my view of the WP is that I
>have yet to really investigate the other "tenses" (for lack of a better
>term) to any real degree.  This material looks like a good way to
>give my research a much-needed "jump-start."

I gave the numbers in passim in a Festchrift article but the material has
not been published.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo