Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) Regarding wayyiqtol: It is one matter to say that
>wayyiqtol is
>> 'inherently perfective' and another matter to evaluate
>Furuli's thesis
>> regarding the yiqtol in wayyiqtol.  Might it not be that
>the yiqtol
>> focuses in on an action/time-segment of a larger event (as
>perceived in
>> the mind of the speaker) and that the wa+doubling adds a
>forward-moving
>> Reference Time that creates a sense of sequentiality and
>hence
>> perfectivity to most wayyiqtols?
>
>yes and no.  You have described my basic understanding of
>the derivation of the wayyiqtol form, and I agree with Rolf
>that the vav + gemination does not convert anything .
>Nevertheless, it seems that wayyiqtol becomes, perhaps by
>mere convention, a form in its own right.  At least I think
>the
>native speaker used it so fluently, so unthinkingly that it
>was a
>form in its own right to him.  Are we then talking about
>pragmatics or basic, inherent verbal semantics?  Do I need
>to insist wayyiqtol is a form in its own right rather than
>a cliticized yiqtol?  When does convention stop being
>convention and start being semantics?  IMO, there's no
>practical difference no matter what I answers we give.  And
>so my best shot at elegance in describing the Hebrew verbal
>system is in section 14.4 of my book.  Here's an abbreviated
>version if the list would
>care to comment:
>
>---------------
>We can pair the wayyiqtol, yiqtol, qatal, and weqatal verb
>forms in three ways to create an overview of the Hebrew
>verbal system of finite verb forms:
>
>Shared meanings:
>yiqtol and wayyiqtol (prefixed forms) = fientive
>qatal and weqatal (suffixed forms)= attributive
>
>Shared functions:
>wayyiqtol and weqatal (clause-initial, "vavved" forms)=
>mainline
>yiqtol and qatal (second position in clause) = off-the-line
>
>Shared genres:
>wayyiqtol and (X) qatal = Historical Narrative
>weqatal and (X) yiqtol = Predictive Narrative and
>Instructional Discourse


Dear Bryan,

You ask: "When does convention stop being convention and start being
semantics?" This is a good question, because "pragmatic implicature" in
particular cases may in time become "semantic meaning". This is the reason
why Broman Olsen and myself use "*conversational* pragmatic implicature" as
a contrast to "semantic meaning".

The difference, however, is quite easy to understand (according to the
cancelability principle of Grice). When a certain meaning allways is
connected with a particular form, and under no circumstances can this
meaning be canceled, then we have the "semantic meaning" of the form. Any
ascribed meaning that can be canceled (even though it is used in most
instances) is conversational pragmatic implicature.

If WAYYIQTOL *allways* has past meaning (except in cases such as
hypothetical conditional clauses and other cases where its apparent
non-past meaning can be explained), past tense is its semantic meaning. If
it has past meaning only in the majority of the cases, this past meaning is
conversational pragmatic implicature. A good example is Greek aorist, which
in most cases has past meaning. Yet two recent theses claim that past tense
is not its semantic meaning. A good Hebrew example is punctuality. Some
verbs have almost always a punctual meaning, but they can also be used with
a durative meaning. Thus punctuality is not their semantic meaning.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo