Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Moon,

Thank you for your questions and observations. My comments come in between
your text.


>Dear Rolf, I have some comments on your treatment of subordinate temporal
>clauses:
>
>You wrote:
>
>(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).
>
>Moon: The above explanation goes against my intuition and computational
>linguistics which I learned. For me , the "when" clause introduces the
>reference time for the main clause both (1) and (2). In (1) the reference
>time is time RT at which Mary's emerging is completed (at least in
>one interpretation of (1) ). John's leaving is described to have been
>completed relative to this RT. In (2), the reference time is
> time RT in the past relative to which John's leaving is completed.
>Mary's emerging is described to happen relative to this RT.
>So, it is more intuitive and simpler to think that the "when" clause
>introduces the RT relative to which the main clause is described, rather
>than to think that the emerging of Mary is the RT whether it occurs
>in the main clause or in the subordinate clause.


RF:
Let me quote a long portion from Bernard Comrie "Tense, 1985, p 65,66:

"The notion of absolute-relative tense may be illustrated by examining the
pluperfect in English. The meaning of the pluperfect is that there is a
reference point in the past, and that the situation in question is located
prior to that reference point, i.e. the pluperfect can be thought of as
'past in the past'. Note that all the tense mean as far as reference point
is concerned is that there is a refernce point in the past; establishment
of this reference point has to be done by examining the context. Often the
reference point is given by a time adverbial, as in "John had arrived by
six o'clock yesterday evening.", where the time adverbial 'by six o'clock
yesterday evening' establishes a reference point in the past (6.00 pm
yesterday), and John's arrival is located prior to that time point. The
reference point may be given by a main clause to which the clause
containing the pluperfect is subordinate, as in "when John had left, Mary
emerged from the cupboard", where the past tense of the main clause defines
a reference point in the past (namely, the time of Mary's emerging from the
cupboard), and John's leaving is located prior to this. The clauses can
also be in the inverse relation, as in "John had already left when Mary
emerged from the cupboard.", where once again it is Mary's emerging from
the cupboard that defines a past reference point relative to which John's
leaving is located. Or the reference may be given more generally by the
context, as in a sequence of independent clauses like "the clock struck
ten; John had already left", where the first clause defines the reference
point in the past, and the pluperfect of the second clause locates John's
leaving prior to that reference point."

Comrie also has another example with "before", the word that Peter holds to
be so important in biblical contexts:
""John arrived; Mary had already left before I arrived." In this example,
my arrival in the past is more likely to be taken as the reference point
prior to which Mary left, since the time relation between John's arrival
and my arrival is left unspecified, it is not possible to relate Mary's
departure to John's departure chronologically."

In the last example as in the examples of the first long paragraph Comrie
takes speech time as the deictic point. If we deleted the first part of the
last example, giving "Mary had already left *before* I arrived.", Comrie
would interprete speech time as C, "my arrival" as RT and "Mary's leaving"
as an event prior to RT. There is no question of "future in the past" in
this example, just because we have the conjunction/adverb "before".  The
way of thinking *may* be different in Hebrew, but this must be
demonstrated, not just assumed on the basis of an adverb.

There may be different models for establishing the relationship in time
between different events, bu all models will use points of reference in
relation to which events can be located on the "time line".  Comrie uses a
model of a combination of "absolute tense" (situations where speech time is
the deictic point), and "relative tense" (situations that have a
relationship to a point of refence that is not idenical with speech time).
I would like to show the logic of Comrie's system (where the tense is the
basis for establishing a reference point) with some examples of my own.

(1) At the rising of the sun John had already come.

(2) At the rising of the sun, John will have come.

There are no time adverbials in either clause, so why do we know that (1)
describes a past event and (2) a future event? On the basis that speech
time is the deictic point (C) and that the verb of (1) is past (relative to
C) while the verb of (2) is future (relative to C). What is the piont of
reference (RT)? it is "the rising of the sun" in both clauses. On which
basis do we establish RT? On the basis of the tense of the verbs!

Let us look at two similar clauses:

(3) Before sunrise John had already come.

(4) Before sunrise John wil already have come.

Will the analysis be different because we have introduced the time
adverbial/conjunction "before"? I say no! C is still speech time, and the
tenses of the verbs are relative to the same RT. I still stick to my words
to Peter that I have never seen anything like this suggestion that B+RM
should make such a construction "futures" in the past.

>
>Let me try to understand the following example from my point of view:
>
>(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;
>
>Though you reject the idea of the "future in the past" which Peter
>suggests, I think the idea is reasonable enough to explain example (3).
>If we accept the suggestion of Hatav, who argues that yiqtol is modal
>which includes the concept of future, we can make sense of (3),
>without having to argue that the YIQTOL here is past.
>Also we can think that the writer does not consider it important
>whether the forming in the womb and being born are the
>event in the past (already completed) at the time of writing.
>The concern of the writer was to describe when the Lord knew him
>and consecrated him. His base reference (reference time zero, RT0) is
>in the past, so to speak, rather than the time of writing.
>I think Niccatti suggested the same idea, when he said that
>the deitic point in narratives is in the past. )
>If so, that is, if the writer's base reference time is in the past,
>the use of modal/future YIQTOL in the before-clause in (3) seems to
>make sense.
>
´
Modality is hardly a *semantic* (uncancelable) factor in Hebrew except
perhaps in apocopated YIQTOLs and cohortatives. Some YIQTOLs have present
meaning and others have past meaning, so even if you make one group of
modality and futurity you will not include all YIQTOLs.
If we apply Comrie's logic to Jer 1:5, I see no other possibility for the
deictic point than speech time (YHWH spoke the words to Jeremiah). If we
let the verb decide the reference point, we find that "knew" is past,
relative to the forming of Jeremiah, and "consecrated" is past relative to
the birth of Jeremiah. Reasoning like Comrie does, I see no other
possibility than taking the forming/birth of Jeremiah as the past reference
point.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo