Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: The "times" of Isaiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[3]: The "times" of Isaiah
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:14:28 -0400


Dear Rolf,

It seems that I have confused "deictic point" with "event time". You
are right, I should read Comrie's "Tense". However, I do not dispute
your conclusion that, according to your definitions, tense is not
grammaticalised in Hebrew. What I continue to dispute is your apparent
conclusion that there is no distinction of meaning between different
Hebrew verb forms.

You say that my "angle of approach does not explain anything regarding
the meaning of the verb forms, it only addresses the question of
coordination and subordination of sentences, a question which is
related to the use of conjunctions and syntax rather than to verb
forms." Well, I would dispute that. Consider the sentences:

1) I am excited because my friend has come home.
2) I am excited because my friend will be coming home.

These sentences are distinguished not by conjunctions or syntax but
only by the verb forms in the subordinate clause. The relationship
between RT and C is presumably the same. Yet surely you would not
dispute that there is a difference in meaning between these sentences,
and that this is more than a "subtlety" or a "nuance" but is
fundamental. These are the sorts of distinctions which, in my view,
are signalled in Hebrew also by different verb forms, rather than (or
sometimes in conjunction with) different conjunctions and syntax.

As for theories of how the different temporal and logical
relationships between clauses, what you call "nuances", are related to
the combination of verb forms, syntax and conjunctions, this is
clearly a field for further study, and I would not expect that the
distinction is made by the verb form alone. On the other hand, the
English examples quoted above make it clear to me that we cannot rule
out a priori the possibility of the verb form playing an important
role, and indeed it seems likely since I think we can presume that
some distinction of meaning is signalled by distinctions between verb
forms, i.e. YIQTOL and QATAL for example are not totally synonymous.

Finally, I do not "refuse to use fundamental linguistic methods",
though I may have misunderstood the one in question here. It can
assume that this particular method of analysis, by the relationship
between C and RT, has been correctly applied, and it seems to have
yielded an informative result, but a rather negative one, that the
distinctions between Hebrew verb forms are not distinctions of tense.
At that point, if we wish to make progress, we need to use different
"fundamental linguistic methods", whether established ones or
experimental ones, to search for the correct understanding of the
distinctions which we are studying. It is of course possible that we
will not be able to find any explanation, but that should not be for
want of searching with whatever tools are at hand, rather than
assuming that the explanation cannot be found because one particular
tool has failed to find it. Perhaps we need to read beyond Comrie's
"Tense" to some of his (and other authors') other works.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: The "times" of Isaiah
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 13/08/1999 06:27


Dear Peter,

Thank you, your post cleared up several points. My comments follow below.

<snip>

Here you seem to be at odds with general linguistics. A study of the
relationship between the deictic point (C), the reference time (RT) and the
event time (ET) is elementary for linguistic studies of languages. It is
correct that if we systematically apply such an analysis to Hebrew, the
result will be that we find that YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, QATAL, and
WEQATAL represent past, present, and future; thus forcing us to conclude
that tense is not grammaticalized in Hebrew. To discard the fundamental
linguistic method because we do not like this conclusion is not wise, to
say the least.
>
>
>To me the relevant point here for analysis of Hebrew verbs is not the
>relationship of the deictic point to the time of writing but rather >the
relationship between the deictic points or event times of the >successive
clauses within the passage. For example, in Isaiah 44:12, >let us look at
a single instance of this habitual action i.e. one >ironsmith making one
idol. In this case I would see the event time as >advancing in lines
2,3,4 below (as regularly with WAYYIQTOL), but in 5 >(as regularly with
X-QATAL) the new deictic point is before the >previously established
event time, and it establishes a new event >time, which advances in 6;
again at 7 a new event time is established >(equivalent to that in 5)
which advances again in 8.
>
>1 The ironsmith fashions it: verbless
>2 FIRST he works it over the coals; WEQATAL
>3 THEN he shapes it with hammers, X-YIQTOL
>4 I.E. he forges it with his strong arm; WAYYIQTOL
>5 MEANWHILE he becomes hungry X-QATAL
>6 SO THAT his strength fails, verbless
>7 ALSO he drinks no water X-QATAL
>8 and AS A RESULT is faint. WAYYIQTOL

However, I have problems with your words "the deictic points or event times
of the clauses within a passage".
I suggest that you read "Tense" (1985) by Bernard Comrie. This book is an
elementary introduction to the linguistic view of time and tense. Comrie
shows that the deictic point (C) can be established on the basis of the
relationship both in space and time between the speaker/writer and his
audience. If the context does not show anything else, C is speech time. In
Isaiah 44, C is undoubtedly connected with the speaking of the prophet. If
someone relates an account, C does not change for each verb but it is the
same throughout the account if not the context does not explicitly show a
difference in one or more cases.

In my view, your angle of approach does not explain anything regarding the
meaning of the verb forms, it only addresses the question of coordination
and subordination of sentences, a question which is related to the use of
conjunctions and syntax rather than to verb forms. We can see this if we
use a past or a future setting instead of a present one:

The ironsmith fashioned it: verbless
FIRST he worked it over the coals; WEQATAL
THEN he shaped it with hammers, X-YIQTOL
I.E. he forgot it with his strong arm; WAYYIQTOL
MEANWHILE he became hungry X-QATAL
SO THAT his strength failed, verbless
ALSO he drank no water X-QATAL
and AS A RESULT was faint. WAYYIQTOL

The nuances are not affected whether RT is before C or contemporaneous with
C, and the same is true if RF comes after C (try to change the whole
sequence into future meaning.)

<snip>

I do not dispute the nuances you find in the verses, although it is
possible to make a different scheme of nuances. I have several times argued
that the combination of aspect (QATAL/WEQATAL-YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL) and the
three semantic properties of the Vendlerian categories (dynamicity,
durativity, and telicity) and the singularity/plurality and
definiteness/indefiniteness of the verbal arguments can signal different
subtleties or nuances. The methodological problem in your approach,
however, as I see it, is that particular syntactic roles are ascribed to
conjunction+verb form on the basis of theory, and the fact that the force
of the conjunction *alone* and/or the syntax may equally well account for
what you call "flashback" and "background clause". For example, in a
narrative with WAYYIQTOLs, there is no wonder when a QATAL or WEQATAL
represent a break or a background information or of some kind or a
pluperfect; not necessarily because the form has a particular semantic
meaning, but because it "breaks" the "semantic convention", and similarly
in a future account with YIQTOLs where other forms occur inbetween.

<snip>

I do not claim that "everything is pragmatic" but rather that "everything
is not semantic". Therefore we need a method which in a systematic way can
pinpoint the elements of the verbal system which are semantic and which are
pragmatic. But if you refuse to use fundamental linguistic methods, such as
the realtionship between C, RT and ET, our work is not more than guesswork.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page