Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

Let me clarify a few things. First, this is not a model I have learned 
from SIL or anywhere else but is based on my own observations of 
Hebrew and other languages. For this reason I cannot quote any 
literature or theoretical models to support me. I wonder if anyone 
else on this list can do so (I've changed the subject line to attract 
their attention!) Secondly, I don't think I am trying to redefine the 
deictic point in any sentences, though that may depend on exactly how 
you define "deictic point". I also reject your suggestion that I am 
confusing deictic point and sequence of events; on the contrary, I am 
making a very specific contrast between them.

The point I am making is simply that the verb form in Hebrew is not 
dependent in a simple regular way on the temporal relationship between 
the event time and the deictic point, and so the Hebrew verb system is 
not in this sense tense-based. However, at least in certain cases, the 
verb form does seem to depend on the temporal relationship between the 
event time and the time of other events in the context, e.g. the main 
clause or the time line. This is not a relationship which I have heard 
of in theoretical models, but it is a logically consistent one and it 
does seem to be what is happening in Hebrew at least in some cases. 
There is also an analogy (which may be helpful, may be not) with verb 
forms used in indirect speech.

Note that in English the verb form in a subordinate clause of time 
depends BOTH on the temporal relationship of the event to the deictic 
point AND on the temporal relationship of the event to the event in 
the main clause.

1) I went when the lecture finished.
2) I went when the lecture had finished.
3) I went when the lecture was finishing.

4) I will go when the lecture finishes.
5) I will go when the lecture has finished.
6) I will go when the lecture is finishing.

(In each case one can replace "when" by "because" or by a more 
specific conjunction like "as soon as" or "after" without affecting 
the verb forms.)

In 1-3 we assume that my departure and the end of the lecture are past 
relative to the deictic point, whereas in 4-6 they are future. In 1 
and 4 the subordinate event is simultaneous with the main event, in 2 
and 5 it is before the main event, and in 3 and 6 it is after the main 
event. English uses as simple tense or aspect in 1 and 4, a perfect 
tense or aspect in 2 and 5, and a continuous tense or aspect in 3 and 
6, in each case the past variant in 1-3 and the present variant in 
4-6.

My suggestion is that in Hebrew the past/present distinction is not 
made but a distinction is made like the other distinction in English, 
but two way (past/non-past) only. It may be right to call this an 
aspectual distinction, I'm not yet sure. And maybe I am just saying 
the same as you were trying to say in different terminology. If so, 
please try to encourage me that we are on the same lines. But if so 
you seem to be making very complicated what seems to me to be rather 
simple.

I do not at present feel ready to carry this discussion beyond the 
examples using B:+EREM. I notice that in Is 57:17 BHS quotes support 
from ancient versions for WAYYIQTOL in place of the first WEYIQTOL and 
one Ms for waw + infinitive absolute [W:QFCOP] in place of the second, 
so you are not quite fair to say "without any manuscript evidence". 
For 2 Kings 8:29 YAK.UHUW, there is evidence for possible textual 
corruption in the HIK.UHUW in the parallel 2 Chron 22:6, though I 
accept that 2 Chron may be a harmonisation. 2 Kings 9:15 seems to be a 
doublet of 8:29.

2 Kings 15:16 seems to be part of the regular idiom after )FZ [GKC 
107c] which I have not yet investigated. I suppose the logic with )FZ 
could be the same as with +EREM, that the following event is still 
future at the time of the preceding one. I could even very tentatively 
suggest that the same is happening with WAYYIQTOL: this is used for an 
event in sequence which is future (or non-past) relative to the 
previous event in the sequence, whereas in narrative X + QATAL is used 
for a background event which is past relative to the previously 
described event. One problem with this suggestion is that we have a 
full YIQTOL [)FZ YAK.EH] at 2 Kings 15:16 whereas the WAYYIQTOL form 
is always apocopated [WAY.AK] as later in the same verse. Also I don't 
think we can explain WEQATAL in this way. But this could be part of 
the prehistoric logic behind these verb forms - I suggest this needs 
further thought.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[4]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    04/10/1999 06:29


Dear Peter,

I have read your arguments carefully. Before (B+RM) you wrote this message 
I did not understand what your arguments were all about. Now I think I 
understand what your arguments are, but I must admit that I have never 
heard anything like them, and I think they they are based upon a faulty 
foundation.

If I understand you correctly, I would say that inherrent in your arguments 
are two basic problems:
(1) A confusion of the deictic point  and the sequence of events.
(2) An application of characteristics of indirect speech in situations 
where these are impossible to use.

Your principal problem is a confusion of the deictic point in the 
expression in Jer 47:1.  The sentence above (in this post) starting with 
"Before (B+RM)" and ending with "all about" that consists of a subordinate 
and a main clause may illustrate the problem. What is the deictic point of 
this sentence? It is of course the time I write my post. The clause "before 
you wrote this message" is telic, and this event was terminated before C 
(my writing of the post). The same is true of the event "I did not 
understand". It is true that "I did not understand" is prepast compared 
with "before you wrote this message", but you cannot on that basis 
establish a "deictic point" connected with "I did not understand" and on 
this basis argue that "before you wrote this post" is future. I have never 
seen such arguments in the linguistic literature, and would like to ask if 
you can refer to any source. It is true that C is pragmatic and must be 
fixed by help of the context. But in most cases does C represent speech 
time (or the time of writing), and where this is not the case, there must 
be clear indicators that it deviates from the normal.

Your English example below," "Here he is. I said that he would come." can 
be compared with  Gen 27:33 (RSV) " I ate it just before (B+RM)  you came 
and I blessed him - and indeed he will be blessed!"  Do you deny that the 
deictic point here is speech time, that is, Isaac's utterance? I find the 
following relationships between R and C in this verse.

(1) "I ate (WAYYIQTOL) "  R>C
(2) "I blessed him (WAYYIQTOL)"  R>C /(2) occurred after (1)/ 
(3) "you came (YIQTOL)"  R>C /(1) and (2) occurred before (3)/
(4) "he will be blessed (YIQTOL and passive participle) C>R /(4) holds 
after (3)/

In (1), (2), and (3) reference time precedes the deictic point, but in (4) 
refence time comes after the deictic point.  I am not aware of any 
linguistic model or system that tries to establish deictic points between 
the different clauses in a passage. To say that the thought of this passage 
is "I ate it just before (B+RM)  you would come (or, will come)", is in my 
eyes completely impossible. Is this a way of handling passages that SIL 
translators learn, or is it simply a theory of yours?

And what about the other examples that I mentioned in my first post?

Is. 57:17 Because of the iniquity of his covetousness I was angry (QATAL), 
I smote him WEYIQTOL), I hid (QATAL) my face and was angry (WEYIQTOL);" Is 
the first WEYIQTOL (as well as the second) future? The compilators of BHS 
saw a problem here and without any manuscript evidence suggested an 
emendation.

What about the YIQTOLs of NKH in 2 Kings 8:29; 9:15; 15:16, are they also 
future?



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


>Dear Rolf,
>
>If you want an answer to your questions, I will try to give you some 
>tentative ones according to my understanding, to clarify the points I 
>made in my previous postings. I think I may have come upon something 
>rather fundamental which you have missed, the principle behind the 
>choice of verb forms in clauses off the main time line - so please 
>read on carefully to my last paragraph below.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator 
>_________________________________
>Subject: Re[3]: Telic YIQTOLs WITH past meaning 
>Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
>Date:    02/10/1999 09:25
>
>
>Dear Peter.
>
>I still see no answer to my principal questions, so I have to repeat them, 
>
>In Jer 47:3...
>
>PK: I assume you mean 47:1 as in previous postings. 
>
>..(and the other mentioned places) we have a telic event where the 
>predicate is a YIQTOL. A common denominator for almost all definitions of 
>aspect is that the imperfective aspect is a viewpoint that does not include 
>the end of an event.  Is the end of NCH included in the YIQTOL in this 
>verse?...
>
>PK: At the time of the main clause, i.e. when the word of YHWH came to 
>Jeremiah, Pharaoh's attack on Gaza was still future and therefore 
>incomplete.
>
>..In that case, how can it be imperfective? And similarly with the 
>tense-view. The end is always included in a  telic event expressed by a 
>finite verb in past tense. If YIQTOL is a non-past tense where the end is 
>not included, how can it be used in this situation when the end objectively 
>was terminated?
>
>PK: Because that termination had not yet happened at the reference 
>point of the narrative here. Compare English: "Here he is. I said that 
>he would come." Here the English "would" relates to an event which is 
>objectively terminated (he has now come) but was future at the time of 
>the main clause "I said". In many languages (including NT Greek) the 
>indirect speech "he would come" is rendered by a straight future 
>tense, apparently this is the case also in Hebrew. Jer 47:1 is not 
>direct speech but the time relationships are analogous, so it is not 
>surprising that the verb forms used are analogous.
>
>An explanation like: "This is because it is preceded by B+RM." is a 
>non-explanation, because you have not answered the questions "how" and 
>"why". The usual explanation for YIQTOLs with past meaning is that they are 
>durative...
>
>PK: This is not my explanation, in this instance. I do not consider 
>this YIQTOL to have past meaning, but rather future "meaning" in the 
>sense that I have defined (though I would rather say that it occurs in 
>a future context as the YIQTOL does not necessarily in itself have the 
>semantic element of future).
>
>..However, durativity is a semantic characteristic connected with the 
>Aktionsart of the verb, and a QATAL or an infinitive of a verb that is 
>semantically durative is just as durative as a YIQTOL (an explanation that 
>the durativity lasts for some time does not help much) And such 
>explanations  completely impossible with telic events. The only way I am 
>able to explain NCH in Jer 47:1 is that *a part* of the action is focussed 
>upon, and that *the end is ignored*, just as if an infinitive was used. 
>This means that whether the end of an action in the past was reached or not 
>is not signalled by QATAL  or YIQTOL (Although there are certain 
>preferences), but it is signalled by the context.
>
>Please show *why* this conclusion is wrong, if that is your opinion, and 
>show *why* we can uphold an aspectual or a tense-view of the verbs and at 
>the same time use YIQTOLs to describe telic events in the past.
>
>PK: I think I have already shown this one in a simplistic way. 
>Unfortunately I do not know the theoretical model which you use well 
>enough to express my point definitively in its terminology.
>
>PK: To generalise the basic point I am making, it seems that in such 
>clauses, subordinate or simply off-line (as generally shown by not 
>being verb initial), the verb form reflects the temporal relationship 
>between that clause and the events of the main time line, and not the 
>temporal relationship between that clause and the objective deictic 
>point of view of the writer.
>
>
>Regards
>Rolf
>
>
>Rolf Furuli
>University of Oslo
>
>Peter Kirk
>
><snip>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: furuli AT online.no 
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.