Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your attention. I take the abbreviation TAMs from 
someone else, but I assume they mean something like "verbal paradigms 
expressing a specific tense, aspect and modality".

I am now starting to understand your privative model, thank you for 
the explanation. Presumably you would say that an English simple 
present is unmarked. So, consider: 

1. This morning I read the newspaper.
2. Every morning I read the newspaper.
3. *This morning I write a letter to my mother.
4. Every morning I write a letter to my mother.

Why is 3 not permissible (except perhaps in a rather special discourse 
context), whereas 1 is OK? Because there is an alternative form:

5. This morning I wrote a letter to my mother.

But how does your model account for this difference in behaviour 
between "read" and "write"?

As for evidence concerning two originally distinct weqatals: well, you 
have helped me to find some instances where weqatal is certainly past 
and others where it is certainly future. This suggests two 
possibilities: one, a weqatal which is so fuzzy in its meaning that it 
can be past, present or future; and the other, two separate weqatal 
paradigms with distinct meanings, which a native speaker (and no doubt 
someone with the experience of Alfred Silberman) can automatically 
distinguish from the discourse level context. I am not sure how we can 
decide between these possibilities, but one way ahead might be to show 
that contexts in which weqatal is clearly past (e.g. when associated 
with wayyiqtol and qatal) are distinguishable from contexts in which 
weqatal is clearly future (e.g. when associated with yiqtol).

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: ex 26 + 36.8ff, (36.29)
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet
Date:    27/01/1999 05:32


Dear Peter,


I have the following comments:

>Dear Rolf,
>
>Let's look at two English sentences: 
>
>1. This morning I read the newspaper. 
>2. Every morning I read the newspaper. 
>
>Here, to my mind, we have two different tenses or TAMs which happen to 
>have acquired the same form by some historical accident - in this case 
>they are actually pronounced differently (like "red" in 1 and "reed" 
>in 2).
>
>Would you agree that the verb is a simple, perfective past tense in 1 
>and some kind of present tense, imperfective and habitual in 2? Or 
>would you claim that for this and a few other verbs (e.g. "let", 
>"put") there is no simple past tense and no simple present tense 
>(except in the 3rd person singular?!) but only one combined tense?

The best way to differentiate between semantic and pragmatic factors, is to 
use a privative model. In the equipollent model we have similar opposites 
(e.g. +/-stative, +/-durative etc). In the privative model we have just 
+properties and there are no opposites.  This means that when a verb is 
*marked*
+ property, say +durative or +past, this property can never be cancelled. 
Unmarked properties may also in some contexts be durative or past or be 
punctual or future, but the important point is that the +property is 
uncancellable. The English verb 'read' is not marked for past tense and can 
play different roles as you show, the verbs "went" and "thought" are on the 
other hand marked for past tense.

In your examples above, 1. is simple past and 2. is present. In posts two 
years ago I used to say that English does not have aspect at all, if what 
we find in Greek and Hebrew is aspect. A Norwegian linguist advised me to 
use "aspect" for all three systems and rather explain the difference. 
However, aspect is not grammaticalized in English, not even the participle 
is "aspect", but it can be used to express what is commonly known as the 
"imperfective aspect". Habituality, as we find in 1. above is not even 
aspect in the English sense of the word, but comes closer to Aktionsart.

>
>Similarly with Hebrew. Simple yiqtol and jussive have the same form in 
>many cases, but they remain semantically distinct. True, one needs the 
>context to disambiguate them (a strong argument for a discourse 
>approach, in my opinion), but this does not mean that speakers thought 
>of them as synonymous.

Non-indicative mood must in many cases in Hebrew be construed on the basis 
of the context, but wayyiqtols must be, if they represent past tense and/or 
the perfective aspect, be comprehended as marked as such (e.g. wayy is the 
signal element). To use my privative model. Any form which is indifferent 
toward +past can be used as non-past or past (e.g. about 5% of the yiqtols 
have past meaning), but wayyiqtol, if it is marked for past tense can only 
be past tense in any context! So your English examples excellently 
illustrate the privative model, but do no contradict the principle that a 
form which is marked for past tense is always past tense.

>
>Could it not be that the one form weqatal represents two originally 
>quite distinct tenses or TAMs which have come together because of some 
>phonological mechanism or Masoretic regularisation but retain distinct 
>meanings?

Absolutely possible! And anyone having a hypothesis about this should try 
to demonstrate its validity by the use of evidence. (Please tell me what 
you mean by TAMs).
>
>Peter Kirk
>
Regerds
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo





---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.