Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

See my comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Can Hebrew "tense" be relative to context not deictic po
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    09/10/1999 08:44

<snip>



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.

PK: Agreed on 1. Not agreed on 2 in that I do not agree that any 
distinctions of this type are relevant in this case.

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.

PK: I'm not sure what right you have to insist on anything. But after 
reading your Comrie examples below I accept your request to discuss 
the matter in this context, although I reject your "completely 
meaningless".

When we...

PK: You mean you and I as native speakers of Indo-European languages?

..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.

PK:  Do you a priori reject any hypothesis that there is no semantic 
relationship between verb forms in Hebrew and the deictic point? In 
other words, that Hebrew is "tenseless" in the precise sense you have 
defined here (but that all tenses are "relative" as defined below)? 

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...

PK: I'm glad to know that Comrie (at the foundational level) as well 
as Niccacci and Rocine (at the Hebrew level) support my suggestions of 
which you earlier wrote "I have never heard anything like them, and I 
think they they are based upon a faulty foundation."

..  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

PK: Thank you for (1) which corrects my earlier thinking that in English 
the point of reference is the main clause - here it is the subordinate 
clause. This suggests that the same could be true for Hebrew, and that the 
point in question is not so much grammatical subordination as logical 
relationship. Note that in both (1) and (2) the clause with the relative 
tense ("John had left") is background, giving the temporal setting of the 
main event which is Mary's emerging.

(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.

PK: I would analyse this differently, that the point in the past which 
is being referred to is when YHWH "knew" and consecrated Jeremiah. 
These are the main events in this verse, and the verbs are QATAL as RT 
is before C. In this verse these events are put in temporal settings, 
the time when Jeremiah was formed and was born. This time was after 
this RT, so relatively non-past, and for this reason (on my theory and 
I think Niccacci's and Rocine's) the verb form is YIQTOL. According to 
Niccacci, the Hebrew indicated that "knew" and "consecrated" clauses 
are main clauses because they are verb initial, and the other clauses 
are subordinate because they are not verb initial. The English 
translation you quote agrees with this. Now I agree that relative 
references are not always relative to the main clause, but (2) shows 
that they can be, and I would suggest that this situation is at least 
as common as (1).

(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.

PK: This is an exceptional example of QATAL after B+RM. I would 
suggest that this might be because of the continuous "came out" with 
the participle. At the time of the event in the subordinate clause 
("finished praying") the event of Rebekah coming out had started but 
had not yet finished, so the event is actually in the middle of the 
reference time or period, after its beginning (hence B+RM, perhaps) 
but before its end (hence QATAL, perhaps).

(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.

PK: This may be irrelevant to the present discussion; the point may be 
that the fleeing was continuous, starting before the breach was made 
and continuing afterwards. Or the X + YIQTOL may indicate 
subordination to the preceding WAYYIQTOL and that the men of war fled 
after the breach was made, i.e. their flight is non-past relative to 
the breach. The following WAYYIQTOL is simply in sequence to the 
previous verb. BHS actually does have textual evidence (though it does 
not quote it) from the nearly parallel 39:4 which has the words W:KOL 
)AN$"Y HAM.ILXFMFH WAY.IB:R:XUW WAY."C:)UW exactly as reconstructed 
for 52:7, but the BHS reconstruction can only be correct if we take 
also the separate suggestion of adding something like WAY.AR:) 
HAM.ELEK: just before W:KOL )AN$"Y HAM.ILXFMFH . So it could be that 
52:7 is an abbreviation of 39:4 in which the verb forms have not been 
correctly adjusted.

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"...

PK: I'm sorry, but I don't see this at all. To me, the point of 
reference is the time when the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah, similar 
to my analysis of (3). What exactly is the "main clause" is 
complicated here and may depend on exactly what is done with the ASHER 
at the beginning of the verse, but I would analyse the B+RM clause as 
subordinate to the "word of YHWH" clause. More to the point (in view 
of Comrie's sentences), the main event and the one which carries 
forward the time line is that the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah, and 
the clause about Pharaoh gives it a time setting. It is only to be 
expected that, as in (1) and (2), the absolute tense (QATAL - event 
before deictic point) is found in the time line clause and the 
relative tense (YIQTOL - event after reference time of time line 
event) is found in the background clause.

.. 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).

PK: On the contrary, I analyse B+RM as a device to express the 
relationship of future in the past (or in the non-past).

To sum up: In some languages it is possible to express "future in the past". 
However, this is a rather extraordinary way of expression,...

PK: In what sense extraordinary? Surely in EVERY language it is 
possible to express this, but the devices differ from language to 
language. In Indo-European languages there are specific verb forms 
like the "would" in "John left for the front; he would never return." 
In other languages the devices will be different, but they are likely 
to exist. Or are you trying to say that there exist languages into 
which the sentence "John left for the front; he would never return." 
is untranslatable?

.. and as such it ought to be clearly marked. The YIQTOL of Jer 47:1 has no 
such mark,...

PK: On the contrary, it has a very clear and specific such mark, B+RM. 
Anyway, no marking (other than word order) would be required if (as I 
suspect) all or most X + YIQTOLs are relative non-past.

.. 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...

PK: Perhaps in the historical sense Pharaoh's attack on Gaza is a 
point of reference. But from a linguistic viewpoint I see it as a 
background event.

.. The only reason for your suggestion of  a future meaning of YIQTOL, is 
your personal view of the meaning of YIQTOL...

PK: Let's not get personal. Anyway, my view is also Rocine's, 
Niccacci's, and close to those of generations of scholars.

.. 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...

PK: I think Jeremiah 1:5 and all of the other examples of +RM and B+RM 
followed by YIQTOL strongly suggest that my suggestion is correct. To 
demonstrate it fully I would of course need to look in more depth, 
also at the few cases where B+RM is followed by other verb forms. I 
would also suggest that you look at Niccacci's evidence and at the 
paper he mentioned, and at the examples in Waltke and O'Connor. 
(Unfortunately I don't have these at hand.) But this is certainly not 
an ad hoc suggestion now, even if it started as one!

..  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?...

PK: I thought James Barr etc had blown all this "Semitic mind" stuff 
out of court decades ago. Yes, Aramaic is close to Hebrew, but it is 
not the same, and this is clearly an Aramaic idiom which is nowhere 
reflected in the Hebrew. Can you really not find enough examples in 
the Hebrew Bible to back up your point that you have to look at the 
Aramaic?

.. 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,...

PK: Oh come on! This is quite ridiculous! You are saying that in none 
of the thousands of narrative WAYYIQTOLs in the Hebrew Bible is the 
action seen as an indivisible unity? Even in cases where the action is 
in principle instantaneous and indivisible? What about the 121 
examples of WAYYAMOT "and he died"? Let's start with the first of 
these, in the expanded genealogy of Genesis 5:5-31. Precisely which 
part of the action of Adam, Seth... Lamech dying is focused on in each 
of these cases?

PK: Now I don't want to switch this thread back into our old 
unprofitable discussions on WAYYIQTOL. So let me finish with my own 
concluding point. I accept that there are many X + YIQTOLs which have 
"past meaning" in the very restricted sense that they refer to events 
taking place before C defined as the speech time or time of writing, 
but I would explain many, possibly even all, of these (and other X + 
YIQTOLs) as "relative non-past". Indeed, as you have found, not just 
YIQTOL but every one of the common Hebrew verb forms can have past, 
present or future meaning on this definition, and there are not even 
any strong tendencies. This makes it clear to me that this definition 
of past, present and future meaning is not particularly helpful for 
analysis of Hebrew verb forms. If you like, in this sense Hebrew is 
tenseless.

PK: So please, stop making postings that read like "Aha, I've found 
another example of a past YIQTOL! That proves that I am right and you 
are all wrong!" I think most people have already started ignoring that 
sort of posting, and that's why you are getting so little response. 
Please don't ridicule the views of others or belittle those who 
respond from a theoretical background which is not the same as yours. 
And please look a little more carefully at some of the other 
explanations of the Hebrew verb form which are currently around, so 
that you don't rest your arguments on cases which others have already 
dealt with in other ways.

.. 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

Peter Kirk