Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Rolf,

Many thanks for your long and detailed post.

I fear that by taking too many examples at once, and especially 
difficult (and possibly late) ones such as the psalm, we will confuse 
ourselves. I would like to sort out the simple points first, and then 
we can go on to the more complex ones. So I would like to look at the 
very first verse which you give, which is a good example for initial 
discussion.

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."

But first let me compare your examples:

(1d) At sunrise Peter had arrived. ( RT/E>C>SP)
(1e) Peter came at sunrise.( RT/E>C=SP)

Let's change (1e) slightly, without I think changing its meaning, and 
so I will assume that your analysis is unchanged:

(1f) At sunrise Peter arrived. (RT/E>C=SP)

Now the analyses of (1d) and (1e) are different: in (1d) C is sunrise, 
but in (1f) (as in (1e)) C is speech time. Why the difference? Now 
actually I think that this is correct, for English. But how can we 
know, for a Hebrew sentence, whether it is comparable with (1d) or 
(1f)? Specifically, let's take

2Kings 17:6 "In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured 
(QATAL) Samaria;..."

How do we know whether the time phrase indicates a new C, as in (1f), 
or not, as in (1d)? You assume the latter. I had been thinking the 
former, but maybe I was misunderstanding the theory. But I still don't 
see how we can be sure of the difference. I wonder if the difference 
in Hebrew is linked to the presence of absence of "WAYHIY" before the 
time phrase - absent here?

Meanwhile, how would Galia have analysed (1d) and (1f)? She wrote, on 
27 December:

     1. Mary ate a banana.
     2. Mary will eat a banana.
     3. Mary has eatn a banana.
     
     ...So what is the difference between (1) and (3)? Reichenbach 
     claims that speakers take into account a third point of time, he 
     labels Reference-Time (henceforth: R-time, or just R). So, every 
     sentence (in English) is to be analyzed according to THREE times 
     (in Reichenbach...): S, E and R. According to him, the difference 
     between (1) and (3) is in the relationship of the three times. In 
     (1) E and R associate, both precede S, while in (3) S and R 
     associate, both follow E. The sentence in (4) clearly shows that 
     there are three times:
     
     4. (when John arrived) Mary had already left.
     
     As Reichenbach determines for the past-perfect sentence in (4), 
     the E-time of Mary's leaving precedes the S-time, but also the 
     R-time determined by the adverbial I put in brackets... The 
     simple-past in (1) builds an R-time, while the past-perfect in 
     (4) does not. I conclude that the past-perfect is NOT an 
     R-building form... That is why without the bracketed sentence, 
     (4) would be ungrammatical. A sentence like "Mary had eaten" 
     cannot be interpreted without providing an R-time.

Galia's (1) seems to correspond to my (1f), and her (4) to your (1d). 
So I think she would analyse (please, Galia, correct me if I am 
wrong!) the verb form in (1f) as building a new R-time and that in 
(1d) as not doing so. Thus the time phrase "At sunrise" is required in 
(1d) to build the R-time for this sentence (unless the R-time is 
already given in the context), but is optional in (1f).

So we can tabulate the sentences as follows:

                                    Rolf              Galia
(1d) At sunrise Peter had arrived.  C is sunrise      R is sunrise
(1f) At sunrise Peter arrived.      C is speech time  R is event time

So I conclude that my analysis of your (Rolf's) C as equivalent to 
Galia's R was not correct. There is nothing in your theory, as far as 
I can see, which corresponds to Galia's R. I think that that is 
unfortunate as I think I am finding Galia's analysis more useful.

Galia's point about the optionality of the time phrase may help to 
decide on how to view the X+QATAL construction of 2 Kings 17:6. If the 
time phrase is optional, the sentence is more like (1f), and if it is 
compulsory, the sentence is more like (1d). Well, there certainly are 
X+QATAL constructions without time phrases, but very often they are 
flashbacks of the type which could be translated in English by a 
pluperfect without an explicit time phrase, such as "John left. Peter 
had arrived." On the other hand, I don't think we would want to 
translate 2 Kings 17:6 "In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of 
Assyria had captured Samaria..." So maybe we take this clause as 
similar to (1f), which is your analysis. On the other hand, Galia has 
said that QATAL does not build a new R-time, so I guess she would 
analyse this clause as more similar to (1d) - is that right, Galia?

Now let's look at the continuation of the verse: "he carried 
(WAYYIQTOL)... He placed (WAYYIQTOL)..." I agree (from the pragmatics) 
that these must be sequential events in this case. So in that case 
they must have new RT's according to your theory, corresponding to the 
nuclei or codas of each event, but I think you are taking them as 
having the same C as the first clause of the verse. (Your rejection of 
my suggestion that WAYYIQTOL might be future logically rules out my 
earlier thought that you might take C as being the time of the 
previous event in the chain). The problem with that analysis is that 
it ignores the important matter of the temporal relationship between 
the successive clauses. Galia would also analyse these clauses as 
having new reference times (though in (1d) her reference time is not 
the same as your reference time), and her comments about 
sequentiality, although rather confusing to me, suggest that her 
theory is concerned with the temporal relationship between successive 
reference times.

So I am now coming towards the conclusion that the theory behind your 
approach, although superficially similar to Galia's, is in fact very 
different from it and results in a quite different analysis of a very 
simple and typical narrative verse like this one. I must say that I 
find Galia's analysis more helpful and yours less so. Since your 
analysis is based on Broman Olsen, I am left wondering whether the 
problem is with her theory or with your application of it to Hebrew. I 
wonder, has Broman Olsen published an analysis of sentences like 
Galia's (1) and (4)? (I don't have her book available.) I am just 
wondering if in her theory C might actually work more like Galia's R, 
in a sentence like (1f) and also in the continuation WAYYIQTOLs 
discussed above. That, to my mind, would be a more useful theory, at 
least for the purposes of Hebrew.

I regret that I am unable to make sense of the rest of your posting 
while I am still confused about the theory on which you base it.

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: <wayyiqtol> again
Author:  <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date:    02/01/2000 15:32


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.

<snipped all material on this Psalm, though I would love to study it>

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 
anothe
r
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






---
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.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.