Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>]

Without taking a position on the Hebrew tense/aspect system, I would like to
offer the additional following data analogous with Peter's suggestion on
Hebrew:

----- Original Message -----
From: <peter_kirk AT sil.org>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 11:01 PM


> 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

in Greek!

I learned early on in my Greek career that the temporal reference indicated
by the tense of non-indicative subordinate verbs was with reference to the
time of the superordinate verb.  That is, present denotes simultaneity,
aorist denotes prior action, perfect completed action, and future future
action.

That is, at least, a first broad stroke analysis.  Then come the finer
distinctions to be made, especially with participles (at least this is where
I have focused some of my attention and can speak with more confidence and
precision, esp. w/respect to aorist particples preceding the main verb).

For adverbial participles, their position with respect to the main verb must
be taken into account:
-if the adv. ptc. precedes the main verb, temporal reference is consistently
relative the timing of the main verb;
-if the adv. ptc. follows the main verb, temporal reference is NOT in focus
(or more likely: totaly absent), and only the aspectual component of the
action is relevant.

This is a case, then, where there is sometimes a temporal significance and
sometimes not, this distinction is clearly indicated by the grammar (word
order), and the temporal significance is with respect to the main clause and
not the 'deicitc point'.

God Bless!

Joe A. Friberg
Arlington, Texas
JoeFriberg AT alumni.utexas.net
MA Linguistics
MA Theology candidate