Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Prof. Niccacci,

Many thanks for your helpful clarification, and confirmation that what 
I was saying to Rolf Furuli was not so wide of the mark. I think you 
are understanding my viewpoint well. Exodus 2:4 is a clear example of 
what I am thinking about YIQTOL, as well as being something which 
could be analysed as on the borderline of indirect speech (a 
borderline which may not be meaningful in Hebrew). I will try to find 
your article to follow this up further.

I suppose I was working on Rolf's definition of deictic point, after 
he rejected any suggestions that the deictic point could be at any 
time other than the time of speaking or writing. Maybe your suggested 
approach to identifying the deictic point is more helpful. But I note 
that in English and other Indo-European languages the verb form in a 
subordinate clauses can be analysed as dependent on the relationship 
of the event time to TWO possible deictic points, both the time of the 
main clause event and the time of speaking or writing. So care needs 
to be taken with definitions here.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[4]: Can Hebrew "tense" be relative to context not dei
Author:  <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il> at Internet
Date:    08/10/1999 10:18


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

<snip>

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

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org] 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.