Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

You are on the right track. See my comments below:



PK
>Dear Rolf,
>
>Many thanks for taking the time to explain this clearly. I was
>confused by the differences between Reichenbach's scheme as described
>by Galia and Broman Olsen's scheme as descibed by yourself. The
>contradictory terminology is certainly confusing to everyone.
>
>You also managed to confuse me at first with the references to
>2-dimensional time. (Surely you don't mean complex (in the
>mathematical sense) time as it appears in the cosmological theories of
>Stephen Hawing?) But when I realised that this was a graphical
>convention (not in my opinion a very helpful one), I realised what you
>were trying to say.
>
>Let me summarise how I now see the situation, and perhaps you and/or
>Galia can comment on whether I understand correctly now.
>
>Galia's S (speech time) is the same as your SP.
>Galia's R (reference time) is broadly the same as your C.
>Galia's E (event time) has been expanded into:
>(a) a period of time which is your ET;
>(b) a point of time, within or at the end of ET, which is your RT.

RF
I think Galia should can better comment on how the system I have described
relates to her system.


PK
>It seems that your C is the time indicated by a time phrase, or is the
>same as your ST when there is no indication of time. Your RT is the
>time indicated by the sentence, whereas your ET is the real world time
>or period of time of the event.

RF
C is the vantagepoint or anchoring point of a proposition, to which the
other terms have a relation. C is often identical with speech time, as in
(1a) and (1b),and (1e), but is not identical with ST in (1c) and (1d)

(1a) Peter will arrive tomorrow. (SP=C>RT/E)
(1b) Peter arrived yesterday.  (RT/E>SP=C)
(1c) At sunrise Peter will have arrived. (SP>RT/E>C)
(1d) At sunrise Peter had arrived. ( RT/E>C>SP)
(1e) Peter came at sunrise.( RT/E>C=SP)

In (1c) and (1d) "sunrise" is C, but in (1c) C is in the past and in (1d)
is in the future, and the reason why we can say this is the auxiliaries. C
is often identical with SP but not allways.

If you project yourself to point C and look at the event as a whole, you
get RT. Where this RT hits or intersects ET, which is "real world time" as
you say, will tell us whether the reporter wanted to show that RT held a
the nucleus of ET (imperfective aspect) or that it held at the coda of ET
(perfective aspect).

PK
>Now let me go back to the original point of this thread. Galia
>classifies WAYYIQTOL as building a new reference time - which
>apparently means a new C in your terminology. I suppose she means that
>in a typical WAYYIQTOL type chain (which, for the sake of example, we
>will assume to be a chain of sequential non-overlapping events, as
>this is the most common case):
>
>In year N of king X event1(qatal), event2(wayyiqtol),
>event3(wayyiqtol)...
>
>C for event 1 is "year N of king X", C for event 2 is a new time
>(after C for event 1?), and C for event 3 is another new time.
>
>Would you agree that WAYYIQTOL could be described as building a new C
>in cases like this? The problem with this analysis is that we need to
>define when the new C is. I guess the new C is the old RT - I think
>that was what Galia had in mind with her new reference time idea. That
>has the interesting corrolary that WAYYIQTOL, when sequential, becomes
>a future tense by your definition:

RF
Let us make a test with 1 Kings 17:6-8
2Kings 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured
(QATAL) Samaria; he carried (WAYYIQTOL) the Israelites away to Assyria. He
placed (WAYYIQTOL) them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in
the cities of the Medes.
2Kings 17:7  This occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against
the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from
under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They had worshiped other gods
2Kings 17:8 and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD drove
out before the people of Israel, and in the customs that the kings of
Israel had introduced.


What is the vantagepoint from which the events are seen? It must be speech
time (= the time of writing). Thus we get C=SP
v 6 "captured" (QATAL) is RT/E and this comes before C=SP
v 6 "carried away" (WAYYIQTOL) is a new, subsequent RT/E. The reason why I
analyze "carried away" as a new, subsequent RT/E is pragmatic - the force
of the conjunction "and" (=WAYY) which here is best taken as consecutive
because this is the nature of nnarrative accounts.
v 6 "placed them" (WAYYIQTOL) is a new, subsequent RT/E, for the same
reasons as with the former WAYYIQTOL.

From v 7 we get background information. If we overlook the first HYH
(WAYYIQTOL) and the relative clause, we have X+) (QATAL) followed by YR)
(WAYYIQTOL)  and HLK (WAYYIQTOL) /the first of v 8/. I think we here get a
new C which is different from SP, and this follows from discourse analysis.
The vantagepoint now is the capture of Samaria and the deporation to
Assyria. The X+) event occurred before that. Thus we get for X+): RT/E>C>SP.
But what about the two following WAYYIQTOLs? I see absolutely no reason to
ascribe to them a different RT/E than for X+). The reason is that WAW need
not express consecution only, but it can also express parataxis (or
hypotaxis). I cannot imagine that the author wanted to say that the
Israelites first sinned, then feared other gods, and then walked in the
statutes of the nations. So both for the QATAL and the two WAYYIQTOLs the
same h+)-event is described, though from different angles. In my opinion
this shows that the WAYY-element has no particular semantic meaning, but is
simply a conjunction.

Let us then take a look at Psalm 105: 18-44 as a comparison.

Psa. 105:17 he had sent (QATAL) a man ahead of them, Joseph, who was sold
(QATAL) as a slave.
Psa. 105:18 His feet were hurt (QATAL) with fetters, his neck was put
(QATAL) in a collar of iron;
Psa. 105:19 until what he had said came to pass (INFINITIVE), the word of
the LORD kept testing him (QATAL).
Psa. 105:20 The king sent (QATAL) and released (WAYYIQTOL) him; the ruler
of the peoples set him free (WAYYIQTOL).
Psa. 105:21 He made (QATAL) him lord of his house, and ruler of all his
possessions,
Psa. 105:22 to instruct (INFINITIVE) his officials at his pleasure, and to
teach (YIQTOL) his elders wisdom.
Psa. 105:23 ¶ Then Israel came (WAYYIQTOL) to Egypt; Jacob lived (QATAL) as
an alien in the land of Ham.
Psa. 105:24 And the LORD made his people very fruitful (WAYYIQTOL), and
made them stronger (WAYYIQTOL) than their foes,
Psa. 105:25 whose hearts he then turned (QATAL) to hate (INFINITIVE) his
people, to deal craftily (INFINITIVE) with his servants.
Psa. 105:26 ¶ He sent (QATAL) his servant Moses, and Aaron whom he had
chosen (QATAL).
Psa. 105:27 They performed (QATAL) his signs among them, and miracles in
the land of Ham.
Psa. 105:28 He sent (QATAL) darkness, and made the land dark (WAYYIQTOL);
they rebelled (QATAL)against his words.
Psa. 105:29 He turned (QATAL) their waters into blood, and caused their
fish to die (WAYYIQTOL).
Psa. 105:30 Their land swarmed (QATAL) with frogs, even in the chambers of
their kings.
Psa. 105:31 He spoke (QATAL), and there came (WAYYIQTOL)swarms of flies,
and gnats throughout their country.
Psa. 105:32 He gave (QATAL) them hail for rain, and lightning that flashed
through their land.
Psa. 105:33 He struck (WAYYIQTOL) their vines and fig trees, and shattered
(WAYYIQTOL) the trees of their country.
Psa. 105:34 He spoke (QATAL), and the locusts came (WAYYIQTOL), and young
locusts without number;
Psa. 105:35 they devoured (WAYYIQTOL) all the vegetation in their land, and
ate (WAYYIGTOL) up the fruit of their ground.
Psa. 105:36 He struck down (WAYYIQTOL) all the firstborn in their land, the
first issue of all their strength.
Psa. 105:37 ¶ Then he brought Israel out (WAYYIQTOL) with silver and gold,
and there was no one among their tribes who stumbled.
Psa. 105:38 Egypt was glad (QATAL) when they departed (INFINITIVE), for
dread of them had fallen (QATAL) upon it.
Psa. 105:39 He spread (QATAL) a cloud for a covering, and fire to give
(INFINITIVE) light by night.
Psa. 105:40 They asked (QATAL), and he brought (WAYYIQTOL) quails, and gave
(YIQTOL) them food from heaven in abundance.
Psa. 105:41 He opened (QATAL) the rock, and water gushed out 8WAYYIQTOL);
it flowed (QATAL) through the desert like a river.
Psa. 105:42 For he remembered (QATAL) his holy promise, and Abraham, his
servant.
Psa. 105:43 ¶ So he brought (WAYYIQTOL) his people out with joy, his chosen
ones with singing.
Psa. 105:44 He gave (WAYYIQTOL) them the lands of the nations, and they
took possession (YIQTOL) of the wealth of the peoples,



The two WAYYIQTOLs of v 20 express exactly the same thought and must be
parallel. Each of the two WAYYIQTOLs of v 24 seems to express an ET
parallel with one another and parallel with the QATAL GWR in the previous
verse.
In v 26 the QATAL §LK continues the sequence, while the QATAL BXR evidently
has another C, which can be construed on the basis if the relative particle.
I take the WAYYIQTOL of v 28, not as consecutive but as parallel with the
QATAL §LX of the verse. The WAYYIQTOL of v 31 is consecutive in relation
the the QATAL. I take the two WAYYIQTOLs of v 33, and the two of 35 as
parallel and not as consecutive.
What is the role of the YIQTOLs  of v 40 and 44. As in numerous other
instances where we, because of our knowledge of the style, expect a
WAYYIQTOL, we find a YIQTOL because a word element precedes it. This
prevents the use of WAYY-. Thus the two YIQTOLs  have exactly the same
meaning as the WAYYIQTOLs. While the YIQTOL in v 40 is consecutive,the
YIQTOL of v 44 seems to be parallel with the WAYYIQTOL.

What we have in the Psalm is a narrative account of what happened with the
Psalmist's people. True, it is found in a Psalm, but I cannot see that
would change anything. If I remember correctly, You had similar
observations about qanother Psalm some time ago - at a time I did not have
an opportunity to study your examples.

There are 26 QATALs in the verses, most at the front of the clauses, and
there are 18 WAYYIQTOLs. I take the following QATALs as consecutive, each
of them having a new RT: v 17, both; v 18, the first, the second prallel; v
19, the first, the second parallel; v 20, the one; v 21, the one; v 25, the
one; v 26, the first, the second a new RT; v 27, the one; v 28,both; v 29,
the one; v 30, the one; v 31, the one; v 32, the one, v 34, the one; v 38,
the first, the second a new RT; v 39, the one; v 40, the one; v 41, both; v
42, the one, new RT.

I take the following WAYYIQTOLs as consecutive: v 20, first, second
parallel; v 24, both parallel with the QATAL of v 23; v 28, the one
parallel with the QATAL; v 29, the one; v 32, the one; v 33, the first, the
second parallel; v 35, the one; v 36, the one; v 37, the one; v 40, the
one; v 41, the one; v 43, the one; v 44, the one.

I take the one YIQTOL of v 40 as consecutive.

The result is that 21 QATALs, 11 WAYYIQTOLs, and 1 YIQTOL are taken as
consecutive, each with a new RT (I use "consecutive" in a syntactic meaning
and not in a technical meaning refering to particular forms.). If this is
correct, it means that the WAW can signal that a form is consecutive, but
that can also be done without any conjunction. This again means that
consecution is not semantic, but pragmatic, it must be construed on the
basis of word meaning, syntax, and a knowledge of the world. While the
WAYYIQTOL is the most used form, this is not the only one that can show
consecution.

PK
>SP  = time of writing
>C1  = year N of king X
>ET1 = time of event 1
>RT1 = C1 (so the QATAL is present) = nucleus or coda of ET1
>C2  = RT1
>ET2 = time of event 2 > ET1
>RT2 = nucleus or coda of ET1 > C2 (so the WAYYIQTOL is future)
>
>This seems to be where your definitions are leading. We could
>paraphrase in English: "From the perspective of year N of king X,
>event 1 happens, then event 2 will happen, then event3...". Well, I
>suppose WAYYIQTOL being new C plus future tense would account for its
>similarity with YIQTOL which is often simply future. Of course, as
>Galia points out, the sequentiality is not 100%, so WAYYIQTOL is not
>semantically a future tense and more than YIQTOL is. But I fear that I
>have taken a wrong turning somewhere. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

RF
I do not give WAYYIQTOL a future meaning on the basis you describe above.
In English there is a semantic difference between the progressive forms and
the perfect forms, and if these represent the imperfective and perfective
aspects respectively, as Broman Olsen claims, and in which I agree, there
is also a *semantic* difference between the English aspects. An
intersection of RT at the coda means that the event factually was
terminated, and an intersection at the nucleus means that the event was in
progress. However, this does not apply to Hebrew because WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL,
QATAL, and WEQATAL can give both a nucleus view and a coda view. (Just
think of all the QATAL examples of YD(, not meaning "knew", but rather
"know", and continue to know.) I therefore draw the conclusion that while
the three factors that "universally" are connected to aspects also relates
to the Hebrew conjugations, the hebrew aspects do not tell us anything at
all about whether an event factually was terminated or will be so.
Only when the RT of an event or state described by a WAYYIQTOL   or another
form, comes after C (as: He will come tomorrow.) I will say that the form
has future meaning. None of my examples of WAYYIQTOL  with future meaning
represent "future in the past", which in my view does not exist at all i
Hebrew, or at least is extremely scarce.

There are many examples in this post, and I will correct any errors if I
become aware of them.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo