Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Rodney K. Duke wrote:

>Dear Rolf,
>
>Thank you very much for your post!  I was hoping that you would have the
>time to join the discussion.
>
>One question: When you tentatively conclude: "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," then aren't we brought back to finding the
>discourse model that seems to work the best?
>
>
>Note: Before I finished this post, I finished reading the digest and saw
>that Peter asked much the same question as above.  I'll eagerly wait
>your reply.
>Rodney
>
>
>
Dear Rod,

Discourse analysis is important for linguisitc work; I would not dream of
analyzing a text without using it. However, it is a complement to other
methods for the study of verbs and not an alternative. One problem with
discourse models is their assumptions and their lack of testability.
Alviero, for instance, assumes that there is a semantic difference between
wayyiqtol and yiqtol, and that makes his system completely different from
one assuming that both were similar. Bryan assumes that imperfectivity and
perfectivity is not connected with the verb form as I do, but with the
phrase or the clause. This results in a completely different system
compared with one asuming that aspect is connected with the verb form. Both
are very consistent in their interpretations and I have learned much from
each of them, but the systems are not better than the assumptions, and
honestly speaking, some interpretations are in my eyes quite forced because
they must to conform with their system. One example was Peter's suggestion
regarding your example from Genesis 44:25. While not impossible, it
illustrates how strict rules which are thought to be valid may influence
translation in an unhappy way.

Let me then return to aspect. So far I have discussed it in principle
without giving any definition. From the almost universal view of aspect I
gather the following three properties: (1) Aspect describes the internal
time of an event and is non-deictic. (2)  Aspect is a viewpoint, i.e. it
represents reference time (RT). (3) The imperfective aspect focuses on a
part of the event after the beginning and before the end, while the
perfective aspect focuses on the event as a whole, including beginning and
end (Comrie), or it focusses on the end (Broman Olsen). If I apply this to
Hebrew, what do I find?

Let us apply point (1) to Neh. 3:13-15:

(13) The Valley Gate was repaired (qatal) by Hanun and the residents of
Zanoah. They rebuilt it (qatal) and put (wayyiqtol) its doors and bolts and
bars in place. They also repaired five hundred yards of the wall as far as
the Dung Gate. (14) The Dung Gate was repaired (qatal) by Malkijah son of
Recab, ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem. He rebuilt it (yiqtol) and
put (weyiqtol) its doors and bolts and bars in place.
(15) The Fountain Gate was repaired (qatal) by Shallun son of Col-Hozeh,
ruler of the district of Mizpah. He rebuilt it (yiqtol), roofing it over
(weyiqtol) and putting  (weyiqtol) its doors and bolts and bars in place.
He also repaired the wall of the Pool of Siloam, by the King's Garden, as
far as the steps going down from the City of David.

I remember that Bryan has commented on these verses in a post, but I could
not find it. However, the question of internal time in these verses has not
been addressed.  If we assume that yiqtol/weyiqtol represent the
imperfective aspect and qatal the perfective one, the English system where
aspect represents internal time, would demand that the four actions
described by qatals were terminated when the text was written, but the five
actions described by yiqtol/weyiqtols were not terminated. This of course
is not true- all actions were terminated. On the basis of a host of similar
examples a draw the conclusion that Hebrew aspect is not concerned with
internal time or time at all in any fashion, and that it represents the
speaker's subjective portrayal of an event or a part of an event.Thus we
have to reject the definition "incomplete/completed". Both words entail an
element of time. What is completed is past in relation to some point of
time, and the notion "complete" must be defined in relation to the
beginning and end of an event, so it represents internal time. For the same
reason we also must reject "incomplete/complete"

If we apply point (2) above to Hebrew, we find that it fits, but point (3),
while fitting in many instances, does not fit in all. To give a thorough
discussion of the data which constitute the foundation for a definition of
Hebrew aspect, I would have needed several pages, but let me give some
short comments. To define aspect I must take into account that it is a
subjective viewpoint of the reporter and is not concerned with internal
time, that most (but not all) imperfective verbs intersect ET either at the
beginning or at the nucleus, and that most (but not all) perfective verbs
either intersect ET at the coda or include the whole event with details not
visible. The most narrow generalization I can make on the basis of these
points is:

"The imperfective aspect is a closeup view of a small part of an event or
state with visible details, and the perfective aspect is a broader view
from some distance with no visible details (The end of the event is not
included in the definition but has indirectyly some importance).

The role of aspects in relation to verbs can be compared to the role of the
article in relation to nouns. The Hebrew and Greek word for "all/every" kol
and pas,will for instance, without the article, often focus on the
individual member of the group,  but with the article will the words focus
on the group as a whole.

The 500+ yiqtols with past meaning in the Bible are often described as
"durative past". But this is really nonsensical!  Durativity is an
Aktionsart term, and aspect does not make a verb more or less durative. In
the Nehemiah verses above, the yiqtol of bfnf is used, but bfnf "is born"
(+durative) and (+dynamic). What I propose, therefore, is that when the
author describes a situation as Nehemiah did or as we find in the
narratives of Genesis, he either focusses on a small part of the event
(yiqtol/wayyiqtol) or on a bigger part (qatal/weqatal).  The imperfective
focus can be compared to the use of participles with past meaning which is
widespread in Aramaic.

We can illustrate that there is no need for the conjugations either to
express tense or Aktionsart. The time can be construed from the context,
and the nature of the action is expressed by the lexical meaning of the
verb.  I suggest that you make the following test with your students: Take
a chapter of a text, delete everything from the verbs except the root, tell
them where the text is taken from and let them translate. I guess that the
translation would be very close to one made on the basis of the full text.

Take the following English sentences: "John GO from his office to his home,
he EAT lunch, he RETURN  to his office. There he WRITE  a letter. Then
Peter ARRIVE, and they DISCUSS the contents of the letter. Afterwords they
APPROACH Sarah...." Because of the context, there is no problem in
ascertaining the time/tense of the verbs, and it is similar with Hebrew
narrative. We neither need any way-element nor to know the conjugation of
the verbs to give a fine translation. Let me add two points:
(1) While imperfective and perfective verbs may signal the same meaning in
many instances, in others there are clear differences. And the combination
of the aspects with the other semantic planes may convey a host of finer
nuances.
(2) I fully accept the discourse principle that word order and the use of
particular forms may signal a difference between mainline and accompanying
situations, but I stress more than others the role of linguistic convention
in discourse analysis.

My study of Hebrew verbs has two directions. I go through the whole corpus
and design tests to see if my aspect definition can be upheld, and at the
same time I design tests to see which conjugations are perfective and which
are imperfective, i.e. if wayyiqtol has the same meaning as yiqtol and if
weqatal is identical with qatal. Discourse analysis is one of the tools I
use.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo