Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Galia Hatav <ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu>]

>Dear Peter,
Rolf wrote (snip)

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

        First I have to study the system you suggested. Sorry it is taking
me time.

Galia

>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ghatav AT aall.ufl.edu
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.