Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re[5]: [LONG MESSAGE!] Can Hebrew "tense" be relative

On  09/10/99 (Re[5]: Can Hebrew "tense" be relative to context not d) Peter Kirk wrote:

> 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.

Dear Peter Kirk,

I take this opportunity to summarize the theory of BH verb system that I have been developing through the last 15 years.

As you mentioned in a previous posting, I believe that in BH certain verb forms have a *fixed temporal reference* while other verb forms have a *relative temporal reference*.  This distinction is based primarily on morphology, not on semantics or on general linguistics.

The verb forms that constitute a verbal sentence have a fixed temporal reference while the verb forms and the other constructions without a finite verb that constitute a nominal sentence have a relative temporal reference.

I mean that morphology is the basis of syntactic analysis. Semantics also comes in as a controlling factor. First, we identify a distinctive verb form or construction; second, we try to understand its distinctive function in the text with regard to other verb forms and constructions; third, we use interpretation in order to check the distinctive function(s). Points second and third go together.

1)      A sentence is verbal when the finite verb is the main element (or information); it is nominal when the finite verb is either missing or is not the main element (or information) but is rather a support for the main nonverbal element (or information).

        In BH the first place is the most important in the sentence; it is the place of the main element (or information),  i.e. it is the place of what is traditionally called the predicate. What is less important, because it is the support of the main element  (or information)--in traditional terms, the subject-- comes in the second place of the sentence.

        Thus the main syntactic slots in the sentence are two--the first and the second. In the second place more than one element may appear. Besides what is traditionally called subject, there can appear the object and the different complements. The relative position of these less important elements has pragmatical implications; however, what is syntactically crucial is the position of the finite verb.

2)       Specifically, IN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE wayyiqtol takes the first place in the sentence; it constitutes a verbal sentence; it is a tense--even it is THE ONLY narrative tense in BH narrative.
    All the other verb forms and constructions are not fixed tenses in BH narrative. They are rather relative tenses, i.e. they signal (a) anteriority, posteriority, or contemporaneity, or (b) marked information (i.e. emphasis or specification) versus nonmarked, plain information (conveyed by wayyiqtol); or else (c) they represent repetition/description/habit as opposed to unique information/action.

  I called "ASPECT" all these connotations--i.e. (a) anteriority, posteriority, or contemporaneity, (b) repetition/description/habit (or frequentative) versus unique information (or non frequentative), and (c) repetition/description/habit versus unique information/action.

IMO, accomplished versus non-accomplished are not meaningful categories in BH.

  Wayyiqtol represents the mainline verb form in BH narrative; it signals the "degree zero (0) of the story. Qatal (actually x-qatal, or second-place qatal, with or without a preceding waw) represents anteriority with regard to wayyiqtol (<--). Yiqtol (actually x-yiqtol, with or without a preceding waw) and weqatal represent posteriority with regard to wayyiqtol (-->). The non verbal sentence (with or without a participle) represents contemporaneity with the wayyiqtol to which it is related.
  Anteriority ("past before the past") is rendered with the pluperfect; posteriority ("future in the past") is rendered with the conditional; and contemporaneity ("present in the past") is rendered with the imperfect of the Neo-Latin languages. ("Future in the past" etc. has also been correctly invoked by Bryan Rocine.)

I need to add that in most cases the shift from narrative wayyiqtol to (waw-) x-qatal simply represents non-sequentiality; i.e. the information/action conveyed with x-qatal is not on the same mainline with (and usually as temporally successive to) the wayyiqtol; it is conveyed on a secondary line, usually as temporally coinciding with wayyiqtol, i.e. having the nuances of "whileŠ", "in the meantimeŠ", "and at onceŠ" + simple past tense. (BTW, Zevit's _The Anterior ConstructionŠ_ seems to overlook this point.)

30    Things are much more complex IN DIRECT SPEECH because direct speech uses all the three temporal axis--that of the present, that of the past, and that of the future--as main line of communication while historical narrative only uses the axis of the past.

   IN THE AXIS OF THE PRESENT, the mainline of direct speech is indicated by the nominal sentence.Anteriority is represented by qatal, or x-qatal (both are used), and posteriority by x-yiqtol (second-place yiqtol, never first-place yiqtol) and weqatal.
       Volitive forms are imperative, first-place yiqtol (in specific cases also x-yiqtol) and its continuation form weyiqtol.

IN THE AXIS OF THE PAST in direct speech (or ORAL narrative), the mainline is STARTED with first-place qatal or with second-place qatal (without any difference). The mainline is then CONTINUED with wayyiqtol for coordinated, mainline information; it is continued with x-qatal, weqatal or x-yiqtol, and nominal sentence for a secondary line of communication AS IN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE.
        In other words, the BEGINNING of the oral narrative is different from that of the historical narrative--no oral narrative begins with wayyiqtol, which on the contrary marks the beginning of the historical narrative--while the continuation forms are the same.

      IN THE AXIS OF THE FUTURE in direct speech, the mainline STARTS with x-yiqtol, or else with a nominal sentence, especially one having a participle. The mainline continues with weqatal, which usually appears in a string. The mainline string of weqatal is only discontinued when the writer wishes to convey an information on a secondary level. Nonsequentiality, or emphasis/specification are conveyed with x-yiqtol; anteriority is expressed with qatal ("past in the future").

4)     In direct speech the nominal sentence conveying mainline in the axis of the present is a REAL TENSE (exactly like narrative wayyiqtol). In the axis of the future the tenses are mainline qatal or x-qatal and its continuation form wayyiqtol. Similarly, in the axis of the future, all the mainline verb forms are tenses, i.e. indicative x-yiqtol and its continuation form weqatal, volitive (x-) yiqtol and its continuation form weyiqtol, imperative and its continuation form waw-imperative.

5)       Thus we have classified all the verb forms and contructions of BH both in historial narrative and in direct speech. Some verb forms and constructions are distinctive of these genres, others are common to both. This is due to the realtive poverty of verb forms in BH.

      It is understood that the main criteria of this analysis are position in the sentence and main line of communication. A tense is a verb form or construction that occupies the first place in the sentence AND/OR conveys the main line of communication. E.g., in historial narrative wayyiqtol is BOTH a first-place and a mainline verb form while in direct speech the x-qatal found at the beginning of an oral narrative is a second-place verb form, still it conveys the main line of communication. This x-qatal IS a tense. The same applies to indicative x-yiqtol at the BEGINNING of a direct speech. This means that the criterion of the main line is superior to that of the first place in the sentence.

 Conversely, the verb forms and constructions that do not occupy the first place in the sentence AND do not signal the main line are no real tenses. They signal aspect as described above.

     The above description may appear complicated and theoretical. I would say that it is simply a description of the situation as represented in the prose texts. In other words, every step is upported by good examples. It is not theoretical, otherwise it would be "more beautiful and attractive."
    I would affirm that it is not a theoretical, general-linguistic model imposed on the texts; it is rather a theory derived from the texts.
       While the above theory is derived from "good examples," it can be tested for a complete narrative. Actually a theory for analyzig a complete narrative has been derived form it. This has been called "narrative syntax."

        Sorry for the long post, much too "theoretical" for my taste but necessaily so.

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