Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

 Dear Rolf Furuli,

Thanks for your worthful message. I will comment on certain points.


On  05/22/99 (Re: die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth)) Rolf Furuli wrote:

< snip >
> 
> 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.
> 

1) Aspect: As already stated in this forum,  IMO mainline verforms and constructions are tenses, i.e. they have a definite time reference, while offline verbforms and constructions indicate aspect (or Aktionsart).
By contructions, I mean the nonverbal sentence, x-qatal and x-yiqtol.
By aspect, I mean FIRST contemporaneity - anteriority - posteriority, i.e. relative time with reference to mainline verbforms and constructions, OR SECOND single action - repetition / description / habit / duration.
Therefore the label "durative - punctiliar" describes what I mean in part, while the rest seems irrelevant to me.
In classical and in Neo-Latin languages there is a clear distinction between simple past (aorist), which is punctiliar, and imperfect, which is durative. In historical narrative simple past (aorist) conveys mainline information, while imperfect conveys offline information (circumstance, description, etc.). I tried to use this basic distinction in two essays on Gospel narratives.

< snip >
> 
> 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. 

< snip >

2) Durative - telic. On the one hand, I do not believe that the function of a verbform depends on the semantics of the  particular verb used. The only exceptions generally recognized are the verbs of emotions, cases of hendiadys and performatives, as was already discussed in this forum.
On the other hand, one has to keep distinct the actual course of events and the way the writer presents the information. The verbforms and constructions used represent the way the author presents the information, not necessarily the way things actually happened. The writer/speaker is free of manipulating the information according to his wish. I can only repeat that IMO the verbforms and constructions can be shown to have specific functions of their own, independent of the particular roots involved.
In the specific case of Neh. 3:14, 15, the fact that the building was already finished at the time the book was written is irrelevant because the writer is free of presenting things differently. By applying the knowledge acquired from clear cases -- as my method goes -- I suggested that, for some reason, the writer presents the two cases as being in the course of completion, He brings, as it were, the reader inside the actual development of the work, as if the work happened under his own eyes.
Clear cases of representing the information as happening before the eyes of the reader are the ones with *hinneh* in historical narrative. See _Syntax_ #71.
I am aware that this is just an attempt of interpreting the evidence in a coherent way. I take great pains to be consistent with my model, as you put it. I can assure you that it makes sense to me and that I am learning the way the ancient writers behaved. Amittedly, things were easier if we allowed ourselves any kind of interpretation irrespective of the different verbform used. My approach to the texts is that I need to learn from them. I can not judge them nor re-write them according to my taste.

< snip >
> 
> <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
> 

3) Josh. 16:1-3 is a good example of a text conveying, first, historical information with wayyiqtol, then description (of the  borders, in this case) with a participial clause and with weqatal, as expected. Again  in 16:4-5 historical information is given with wayyiqtol, and description with weqatal in 16:6-7, then with x-yiqtol (which if the offline construction relative to weqatal) and again weqatal in 16:8a, then nonverbal clause in 16:8b-9. The welo'+qatal in 16:10 is a negative wayyiqtol (not a x-qatal); it is coordinated to 16:4: "They inherited ... -- (16:10) But they did not dispossess the Canaanites...".
A good text indeed. One can learn from it.

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci 
Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
Students Email mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o