Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote,


>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.

nn
>
>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.






Dear Peter,

It has been a very busy week, but here come some comments  on your thoughts.

We agree in the following regarding Jer 47:1:

1) The destruction of Gaza was completed when chapter 47 was written.
2) In the YIQTOL referring to this event the *end* is not included.

We therefore have the problem:  Given 1) and 2), how can we account for the
use of YIQTOL in this past context (given that YIQTOL is either a non-past
tense or is imperfective).

If I understand your arguments correctly, you suggest that this YIQTOL
represents "future in the past". I accept that "future in the past" occurs
in several languages, including English (example: "John left for the front;
he would never return."), so I do not a priori reject that the YIQTOL of
47:1 (and other YIQTOLs) has a "future" meaning. However, I insist that we
discuss this matter in the context of *deixis* and not only as a
relationship between a main clause and  a subordinate clause, because this
is completely meaningless.

When we use clauses with verbs, we explicitly or implicitly use deictic
points, i.e. vantage points from which the action is viewed. Such a deictic
point consistes of time, space and person. Often the deictic point is
speech time (time=the present moment, space= present spot, and person=the
hearer or speaker).  However, the deictic point (C) is pragmatically fixed
and need not be speech time (ST), but the relationship between the
reference time (R) and the deictic point is semantic, it cannot be
cancelled: past tense: R before C, present tense R=C, future tense R after
C.

In addition to the "absolute tenses" described above, Bernhard Comrie
speaks about "relative tenses" (this may be what Moon had in mind by his
use of RT0, RT1 etc.) and even about a combination of absolute tenses and
relative tenses, and this is pertinent to our discussion.  We have a
"relative tense" when our original focus is on speech time, but then we
establish a point of reference in the past (or in the future) and speaks
about an action in relation to this point of refence.  Let me give two
examples from Comrie.

(1) John had already left when Mary emerged from the cupboard.
(2) When John had left, Mary emerged from the cupboard.

What is the point of reference in (1) and (2)? It is Mary's emerging. This
is a point in the past, and John left prior to this point. This means that
John's leaving represents a past situation in the past (both being prior to
speech time), thus being pluperfect. What is interesting with these
examples in our context, is that the *clause* in which a verb occurs (
whether it is a main clause or a subordinate clause) is not important. The
emerging of Mary is the point of reference both when it occurs in a main
clause (2) and in a subordinate clause (1). Let us look at some examples
that may throw light upon Jer 47:1

(3) Jer. 1:5  Before I formed you (YIQTOL) in the womb I knew (QATAL) you,
and before you were born (YIQTOL) I consecrated (QATAL) you;

YHWH spoke to Jeremiah (ST) and we may use this situation as C. He referred
to a point in the past (the forming of Jeremiah), and this is RT. Because
RT comes before C, the first YIQTOL *must* be past. We learn that YHWH knew
Jeremiah before RT, and if we like, we can call this RT1 (a reference,
relative to  RT which is relative to C). Exactly the same is true with the
second YIQTOL and QATAL.

(4) Gen. 24:15 Before (B+RM) he had finished praying (QATAL+ infin.),
Rebekah came out (part.) with her jar on her shoulder.

Her we have a QATAL together with +RM, and the point of refence is the
finishing of speaking ("praying"). *Before* this point Rebekah came out.

(5) Jer. 52:7 Then a breach was made (WAYYIQTOL) in the city; and all the
men of war fled (YIQTOL) and went out (WAYYIQTOL) from the city by night."

Here we have a consecution of events with two WAYYIQTOLs and one YIQTOL.
BHS suggests without manuscript evidence that the YIQTOL be changed to a
WAYYIQTOL. Such a YIQTOL  is of course problematic for traditional
thinking, but when we realize that it may turn out that as many as 10% of
the YIQTOLs in MT have past reference, it is not at all strange.

Let us now look at Jeremiah 47:1. The prophet wrote the book, and relative
to the time of writing he fixed a point of reference in the past in the
passage: "The word of YHWH that came to Jeremiah before Pharaoh struck
(YIQTOL) Gaza." What is the point of reference? As is seen from the cases
above, it cannot be anything else but the expression "Pharaoh struck
(YIQTOL) Gaza". This is a past event relative to the time of writing, and
"The word of YHWH that came to Jeremiah" came *B+RM* this point of
reference; i.e. it is past in the past (pluperfect) relative to the time of
writing. The conjunction "before" (B+RM) is simply a device to express this
relationship of past in the past as is seen in (4) and (3).


To sum up: In some languages it is possible to express "future in the
past". However, this is a rather extraordinary way of expression, and as
such it ought to be clearly marked. The YIQTOL of Jer 47:1 has no such
mark, and nothing in the context suggests that your view is correct. To the
contrary, Pharaoh's striking og Gaza serves as a point of reference in the
past not in the future, as do similar events in the examples above. The
only reason for your suggestion of  a future meaning of YIQTOL, is your
personal view of the meaning of YIQTOL. But before you have shown other
Hebrew examples that clearly indicate that your view is correct, your
suggestion regarding Jer 47:1 must be viewed as an ad hoc suggestion.  I
ask you again to review my Aramaic examples. When we find two participles
with past meaning in the clause "Nebochanezzar answered (part.) and said
(part.)", it is evident that the Semitic mind could express actions in the
past by just making visible a part of the action and not the end (which
must be construed on the basis of the Aktionsart and context). Aramaic is
very close to Hebrew and their verbal systems are quite similar; so why
should not the same be true with Hebrew? My conclusion,therefore, is that
the YIQTOL of Jer 47:1 and the more than thousand other examples of YIQTOLs
with past meaning, focus on a part of the action (similarly to how we had
construed  an infinitive or a participle), and that the end is irrelevant.
Information of the end is construed on the basis of the context.  The same
is true with all the WAYYIQTOLs in narrative texts, a part of the action is
focused upon, the consecution is a function of the narrative itself and not
of the verbs (as Comrie has noted for the languages of the world) and that
the end is reached in each case is gathered both from the Aktionsart and
from the context.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo