Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Rod,

To try to make a synthesis of different viewpoints is a good goal, and you
have made several good observations and suggestions. A reader of the
different  grammars and monographs of the members of b-hebrew may learn
much, but in addition to studying the results and the suggestions, there is
also a need to study the very models themselves and the assumptions behind
them. This will help us to ascertain which results each model is able to
achieve and which are not attainable, and it will help us to decide whether
we are willing to accept each assumption behind a particular model. Such an
approach may reveal that there are several very important fundamental
questions which the models do not address at all. Let me point to some
weaknesses:

(1) The most fundamental assumption is that Classical Hebrew has four
conjugations: yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal and weqatal. By using this
assumption, on has removed onself very far from "the fundamentals" of
Hebrew. I claim that Hebrew only has two conjugations, and I see the need
for a study to start with the two which are morphologically marked
(prefix-forms and suffix-forms) and by scientific means (not only studies
of function/pragmatics but also of semantics) to SHOW  that there are four
conjugations, not only assume it.

(2) The most important question that none of the models duscuss or outline,
is the difference between *semantic meaning* and *conversational pragmatic
implicature*,i.e. which parts of the verbal system are cancelable and which
are not. As long as this question is not addressed, function (pragmatics)
is easily confused with meaning. Because most or all of the models are
concerned with function, function, and more function, this confusion is
likely to occur.

(3) None of the models describe parameters, by the help of which we can
*define* Hebrew aspects, but the nature of such aspects are assumed. The
most pregnant question in this regard is whether Hebrew aspects are
subjective or objective, i.e. whether or not the use of the different
aspects signal a consistent difference in the objective nature of the event.

(4) All the models (perhaps except Bryan's) discuss and cover just a part
of the Classical Hebrew corpus, in some instances only the narrative genre;
and their conclusions are either not applicable to the other parts of the
corpus, or this has never been tried. A model which cannot account for
*all* the verbs of the corpus is not very appealing in my eyes.

I do not claim that I do the right things and that my model is the best,
but I honestly try to handle the problems mentioned above.

(a) My corpus is the whole Bible, DSS, the inscriptions and ben Sira.

(b) The model scrupulously tries to distinguish between what is semantic
and what is pragmatic on the basis of the principle of  H.P. Grice ("Logic
and conversation", in P. Col, J. Morgan, eds, "Syntax and semantics: Speech
acts", 1975): "semantic meanings may not be canceled without contradiction
or reinforced without redundancy." Because of this principle, the stress of
my model is different from the others. All the wayyiqtols with past meaning
in narratives are not very interesting because they *cannot prove* that
wayyiqtol is a preterite (the past meaning may be pragmatic), but the
wayyiqtols with non-past meaning are highly significant. If the past
meaning of these forms cannot be explained as special cases, textual
corruption, idiomatic use etc, a reasonable number of such forms would show
that past tense is not a part of the semantic meaning of wayyiqtol.

(c) The model has parameters to deal with the nature of Hebrew aspects.
Mary Broman Olsen ("A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and
Grammatical Aspect", 1997) has shown that English aspect is an objective
property which combined with tense signals clearly defined situations.

 Broman Olsen's analysis of the imperfective aspect is that reference time
(RT) intersects the event time (ET) at the nucleus (between beginning and
end) and her analysis of the the perfective aspect is that RT intersects ET
at the coda (end). The objective conclusion drawn from this, is that when
the imperfective aspect is used, ET continues after RT (the event continues
after the point where it is observed), and when the perfective aspect is
used, ET does not continue after RT (the event is finished when it is
observed). This means that the aspects in combination with tense have a
fixed, definite meaning, giving a uniform signal of the nature of an event.
Thus the combination of past tense and the imperfective aspect ("I was
walking.") indicates that the action continued after RT; the combination of
past tense and the perfective (pluperfect, "I had walked.") indicates that
the event was finished at RT; and the combination of past tense and both
the perfective and the imperfective aspect (past perfect progressive (I had
been walking."), indicates that the event was finished at RT.

Taking Broman Olsen's model as a point of departure, what I need to do to
find the nature of Hebrew aspects, is to go through the whole corpus and
map the following: Where do the RT of yiqtols, wayyiqtols, qatals and
weqatals intersect the ET? If I find the same pattern as in English
regarding particular groups, the conclusion must be that Hebrew aspect
resembles English aspect and is objective. A different pattern may show
that Hebrew aspects do not have a fixed pattern which pinpoints the
objective nature of events and states.

My work is in progress, but I can reveal that I have found a completely
different pattern for the aspects in Hebrew than for English.  Some
glimpses: (1) Only yiqtol and wayyiqtol intersect the event *before* ET
(conative situations). (2) yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal and weqatal intersects
ET at the nucleus or at the beginning of ET. (3) Yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal,
and weqatal intersect the event/state *after* ET (This is particularly seen
in Piel because it is resultative and factitive). Conclusion: Aspect is
subjective and not objective! The evidence I gather on the basis of the
cancelability principle indicating that there is just a pragmatic
difference between yiqtol and wayyiqtol and qatal and weqatal and not a
semantic one, is increasing. I have started with a study of Phoenician,
Ugaritic and Accadian to scrutinize the claim that there existed a short
prefix-form coding for past tense, and that wayyiqtol is a continuance of
this form. The application of the cancelability principle to the material
so far, seems to rule out such a preterite, because the short form in the
material codes for past, present and future.

I appreciate your suggestions, Rod, trying to interprete all prefix forms
in a similar way. Your use of historic present is quite good because it
points to the important problem with a special interpretation of wayyiqtol.
Why is for instance historic present used in English and Greek? I would
say, because neither of them are tenses, so they can be used for different
"times". And why do we in Greek have gnomic present and gnomic aorist but
not gnomic future or gnomic imperfect or gnomic pluperfect? Because neither
Greek present nor aorist (I hear Randall's protest) code for tense but only
for aspect, while future codes for tense and pluperfect and imperfect code
for both tense and aspect. So I find your use of the expression
"con-temporary" interesting and fine, and this expression should be
developed rather than the expression "historical present". Because of the
use of historical present in different languages it has particular
connotations that can cloud the question.

What I suggest, however, is for all those interested to do some study
regarding my problem (2) and (3) above.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo


>Dear Colleagues,
>
>More on wayyiqtol
>
>I would like to offer a synthesis of what I have understood of some of
>the arguments of Furuli and Hatav and to offer one more suggestion,
>which might shed light on the enigma of wayyiqtol.  (I know that I
>missed about a month's discussion on aspect and wayyiqtol, so the
>following thoughts might be redundant.  If so, I apologize.)
>
>1) If we accept as correct the concept that 'aspect' reveals the
>speaker's perspective of an event/action, and that the 'aspect' of
>yiqtol is emerging/partial action as opposed to seeing the action as a
>whole event which would be expressed by the qatal (I believe this is
>what Furuli has argued), then this concept ties in well with Hatav's
>thesis that,
>
>2) yiqtol is modal--understanding modality in a broad sense as that
>which has not yet become actual (I think this is what Hatav says.)  If
>an event is not yet viewed as complete, then it would not yet belong to
>realis/actuality.
>
>3) Hatav also seems to be correct when she sees wayyiqtol as
>establishing a new Reference time that initiates a forward moving
>sequence, as opposed to a sequence created by a backward connection.
>(Sorry, if this is not what she said.  Our library does not have her
>work and I have only been able to skim part of it on an occasion.)
>
>4) I would add one more suggestion. In storytelling, particularly in
>oral storytelling, it is not unusual for the narrator to assume a
>Speaking time that is con-temporary with the events being told.  (In
>Hatav's terms this artificial Speaking time (distinct from the real
>Speaking time of the narrator) would coincide with the Reference time
>and Event time.)  When reporting an historical narrative from this
>perspective, the Hebrew narrator would be viewing/presenting the event
>as emerging and as not yet actual, since it is not yet complete;
>therefore, the verb form to use would have to be yiqtol.
>
>The result of this line of thinking is that the wa+doubling is not seen
>in any way as "converting" a future to a past (as has long been
>discounted) or a perfect to an imperfect or a modal to a nonmodal.  As
>Furuli has argued, a yiqtol is a yiqtol whether prefaced by wa+doubling
>or not.  The wa+doubling (whether or not an invention of the Masoretes -
>Furuli) just seems to function as a marker of historical,
>forward-moving, sequentiality, maybe akin to Arabic fa as some of you
>have described it.  It seems the best way to capture this in English is
>with the present tense (i.e. the historic present): "They go to him and
>they stand before him and they say..."
>
>What do you think?  (I'm not a linguist as Niccacci, Hatav, Furuli,
>DeCaen, and many others of you are.  I'm just tossing this out as a
>suggestion.)
>

>
>Rodney