Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Alviero Niccacci wrote
>
>A special problem is present in 3:14 and 15. The setting up of doors,
>lock, and bars is related with continuation wayyiqtols in 3:3, 6 and 13,
>while in 3:14 and 15 it is related with weyiqtol. In both cases the
>weyiqtol continues a x-yiqtol clause, not a x-qatal as in the other cases.
>Now, the difference between x-qatal and x- yiqtol in narrative is that
>between perfective and imperfective information. I would translate here:
>"it was he that was rebuilding it (x-yiqtol) and (?) was setting up
>(weyiqtol) its doors, locks, and bars" (3:14); similarly in 3:15. I added
>a question mark to my translation because weyiqtol usually carries
>volitive force; the usual continuation form of x-yiqtol when it is
>indicative (not volitive) is weqatal (or another x-yiqtol if a detail of
>the main information is to be highlighted). Therefore, a "regular"
>translation of 3:14 would be: "it was he that was rebuilding it (x-yiqtol)
>IN ORDER TO SET UP (weyiqtol) its doors, locks, and bars". For some reason
>(maybe because of the special configuration of the ground) the duration
>and difficulty of the work is highlighted here. The ancient versions
>translated as simple past and therefore some modern authors think that a
>wayyiqtol should be read instead of weyiqtol--which is indeed possible,
>although I would favor the Masoretic reading.
>



Dear Alviero,

I appreciate that you give thorough explanations and that you always take
great pains to be consistent with your own model.  I have a question about
the definition of the aspects.  I agree with the principle that the verb
forms represent aspect and disagree with Bryan who apply aspect to the
phrases with the effect that YIQTOL in  Neh 3:14 is perfective rather than
imperfective.  However, I am not sure what you mean by "perfective and
imperfective information" and which Hebrew nuance you try to convey by
translating Neh 3;14 by "he was rebuilding it and was setting up its doors."

I hope that you and Bryan will define the terms "imperfective" and
"perfective", because there is much confusion as to their meaning.  Just
look at the list below which gives some the the oppositions that have been
suggested:

progressive - non-progressive
dynamic - stative
durative - punctiliar
incomplete - complete
process - result(ative)
temporary - permanent
continuous       - non-continuous
atelic - telic
bounded - unbounded
internal focus - external focus

In the Semitic languages has the opposition "durative-punctiliar" been
particularly popular. We find it in Jouon/Muraoka (p 355) for Hebrew, and
in J. Huehnergard,1997, "A Grammar of Accadian", pp 98,99 for Accadian.
However, these are Aktionsart terms and not aspectual terms.

So what about the meaning in Neh 3:14,15? If we take the English present
participle as the perfective aspect and perfect as the perfective aspect,
we find a neat interplay between tense and aspect. Tenses fix the action in
relation to a deictic point, either before, contemporanous with, or after
this point, while the imperfective aspect indicates that the action was
still continuing at the point when it was referred to (reference time) and
the perfective aspect indicates that the action was completed at the point
when it was referred to.

Can we apply this to Neh 3:14,15? The verb BNH is durative and telic.
Durativity and telicity are semantic properties (while punctiliarity is
pragmatic), and this means that *any* form of the verb, finite and
non-finite are durative and telic. Thus the QATAL of BNH in v 13 is just as
durative and telic as the YIQTOL of the same verb in v 15.  Shallum's
building was finished at the time the book was written, as were the other
actions described. If we ask about the reference time, where it intersects
event time, we would, because BNH is durative and telic and the action was
completed, expect that reference time intersected the event time at its
coda, i.e. that the verb is perfective. (I suppose this is the reason why
Bryan takes the YIQTOL of v 15 as perfective. This is the logic part of his
model.) A very strong case can be made for the view that aspect is
connected with the verb forms and not with phrases, as is your view, but
then you have a problem with v 15.

Not only is the verb durative and telic and the action finished but both
the subject and the object are singular and definite count nouns.  An
imperfective verb with past meaning could signal frequency (he built gate
after gate) or habituality (it was his custom to build gates), but both are
outruled by the context and the mentioned characteristics. So again, why is
an imperfective verb used, and what will "he was rebuilding it" convey
which is not conveyed by "he rebuilt it"?

<Lists of borders and settlements of the tribes in Josh. 14-21 are also
worth study in this regard.

This is a good idea. The borders of the inheritance of the tribes "went
out", "passed", "turned" etc, but all these expressions must describe the
same thing - state(s). How then can we explain the different verb forms
used when the situation in all cases is the same?

Joshua 16:
v1: WAYYIQTOL and participle
vv2,3: four WEQATALS
v 5: two WAYYIQTOLS
v8: YIQTOL  AND WEQATAL
JOSHUA 17:
v10: WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL




Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo