Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

On  07/10/99 (Re[4]: Can Hebrew "tense" be relative to context not d) 
Peter Kirk wrote:


> Dear Paul,
>
> Thank you for your posting. I haven't seen Bryan's book, and he has
> kept out of this thread. So it seems that my idea is not so far from
> what others are saying, despite Rolf trying to make it seem totally
> hare-brained. Perhaps you or Bryan can point me and Rolf in the
> direction of some more background to Bryan's "relative non-past" idea.
>
> In fact Niccacci seems to say something similar: "We can affirm that
> verb forms have FIXED TEMPORAL REFERENCE when they are verbal
> sentences and/or indicate the mainline of communication both in
> narrative and in direct speech. On the other hand, they have a
> RELATIVE TEMPORAL REFERENCE when they are nominal clauses and indicate
> a subsidiary line of communication." (By "nominal clause" Niccacci
> seems to mean any clause which does not begin with a verb (or W- plus
> verb). So he would I think call B:+EREM + YIQTOL "nominal", though
> +EREM is hardly a noun.) (A. Niccacci, "On the Hebrew Verbal System",
> in Bergen (ed.) "Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics",
> Eisenbrauns 1994). But no further explanation is given in this brief
> article.
>
> I know I'm not really addressing Rolf's question. That's one reason
> why I changed the subject line. I am rather putting a different
> interpretation of the basic facts (a much simpler one) from the one
> which is implied in his question. On my interpretation, his question
> (at least as far as it is based on Jeremiah 47:1) becomes meaningless.


Dear BH list-members,

It took me some effort to follow this discussion. I hope not to have 
misunderstood those who tok part in it.

Peter kirk was kind enough to refer to my paper in Bergen (ed.), 
"Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics." Now, if this seems 
unclear, or too brief, one may try another paper of mine in E. van 
Wolde (ed.), "Narrative Synyax and the Hebrew Bible", 167-202.  In 
#9.1 and #9.2 of this paper one finds a summary on "Tense and aspect 
in historical narrative," and on "Tense and aspect in direct speech," 
respectively.

I see a risk of imposing on the texts a general-linguistic model that 
does not fit; however, other colleagues see the same risk in my (and 
others') approach. Thus, is there anything to do?

My point is that to analyze the BH verforms with the criterion of 
'reference time' and 'deictic point' is risky unless one starts from 
morphology. The problem I see is, How do I identify the 'deictic 
point'?
As far as I understand, in historical narrative, the 'deictic point' 
is the past because by definition the historian narrates events that 
happened in the past *as actually happening in the past* (one could 
also present them as future or as present events). Differently, in 
direct speech the 'deictic point' can be the axis of the present, 
that of the past, or that of the future, depending on the speaker's 
orientation, i.e. whether he states something concerning the actual 
moment of communication, or preceding that moment, or following it, 
respectively.

In BH historical narrative, the 'deictic point' is the past and the 
'reference time' of wayyiqtol coincides with the 'deictic point.' In 
H. Weinrich's terms, this narrative wayyiqtol indicates the 'degree 
zero,' or the mainline of communication; conversely, qatal and yiqtol 
(actually [waw-] x-qatal and [waw-] x-yiqtol, i.e. second-place qatal 
and yiqtol) indicate an information or event that is anterior or 
posterior to the 'degree zero,' respectively.

A couple of examples may help clarify what I am saying.

- (shift FROM narrative wayyiqtol = zero degree TO [waw-] x-qatal = 
anteriority):
	(Gen. 31:33) "Laban went (narrative wayyiqtol, continuing a 
string of the same verbform) into Jacob's tent and into Leah's tent 
and in the tent of the two maidservants, but he did not find them 
(*welo' maTSa'* = negative counterpart of wayyiqtol). And he went out 
(narrative wayyiqtol) of Leah's tent, and entered (narrative 
wayyqtol) Rachel's tent.
	(31:34) Now Rachel HAD TAKEN (waw-x-qatal = anteriority) the 
household gods AND HAD PUT THEM (continuation wayyiqtol, having same 
value of the preceding waw-x-qatal) in the camel's saddle, AND HAD 
SAT (continuation wayyiqtol, same as previous) upon them. Therefore, 
Laban felt (narrative wayyiqtol, resuming mainline) all about the 
tent, but did not find them (*welo' maTSa'* = negative counterpart of 
wayyiqtol, as in v. 33)."

- (shift FROM narrative wayyiqtol = zero degree TO [waw-] x-yiqtol = 
posteriority):
	(Exod. 2:4) "(Moses') sister stood (narrative wayyiqtol) at a 
distance, to know WHAT WOULD BE DONE TO HIM (*mah-yye'aSeh lô* = 
x-yiqtol = posteriority)."

I hope this helps. Peace and all good.

Alviero Niccacci

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
Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il