Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[5]: <wayyiqtol> again

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[5]: <wayyiqtol> again
  • Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 22:34:19 -0500


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your reply. Please see some further comments of mine
below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[4]: <wayyiqtol> again
Author: <furuli AT online.no> at Internet
Date: 03/01/2000 08:58


Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments. See my comments below:

<snip>

RF
First of all, please change the preposition in (1d), in accordance with
what I wrote to Ian: "*By* sunrise Peter had arrived.".
Your question "How can we know whether there is a new C in a Hebrew text?"
is clearly pertinent if Hebrew does not have tenses. A new C in the
examples above relates to pluperfect, so we could ask: How do we pinpoint
the pluperfect in Hebrew?...

PK: I assume that here you mean "pluperfect" not as a verb form but as
a verb function, or however you might term this. But sorry, Rolf, you
are bringing in two further assumptions here, first that Hebrew verb
functions can be correctly described by terms taken from Latin
grammar, and the second that all verb functions with a new C are
pluperfect. The latter is not true in English: if there is a new C in
"By sunrise Peter had arrived", surely there is also one in "At
sunrise Peter was about to arrive". In English "During the last hour
before sunrise Peter arrived" may not give a new C, but there could
well be a verb form in Hebrew which would give a new C in this type of
sentence. Indeed, on further reflection on your definitions here, I
would suggest that the first part of 2Kings 17:6 "In the ninth year of
Hoshea the king of Assyria captured (QATAL) Samaria;..." is exactly
this: a new C is set up which is a time period ("the ninth year of
Hoshea") and all of the events of this verse are related to this time
period. This, by the way, would make both the QATAL and the WAYYIQTOLs
in this verse present by your definition.

RF: ...There is no particular form for it, so what we can do is to look at
the context and particularly look for anaphoric elements,i.e. elements
that show that the action of the verb in question occurred before another
action. In narrative with WAYYIQTOLs, a QATAL in between these may be a
signal for Pluperfect, but a WAYYIQTOL can also be translated as
Pluperfect. In Psalm 105:26 both the relative particle and the context
lead us to take BXR as a pluperfect.

PK: Yes, indeed I would take the majority of QATALs in subordinate
clauses within narrative as pluperfect. For such clauses, C is the
time of the main clause. This is also often the case for QATALs in
narrative among WAYYIQTOLs. I think that Galia's analysis is very
helpful here: the WAYYIQTOLs build a new reference time (though not, I
now think, a new C) but the QATALs relate to the RT already built by a
preceding time phrase or WAYYIQTOL.

PK: Thus I would analyse the very common structure for a narrative
segment: B-<time phrase> <QATAL clause> <WAYYIQTOL clause> <WAYYIQTOL
clause>... as follows. The B-<time phrase> defines a C, perhaps a
period rather than a point in time, for the following events. The
initial <QATAL clause> indicates a simple event which took place
during that period. The following <WAYYIQTOL clause>'s are subseqent
events with new reference times, in Galia's terminology (though I
realise that I am trying to mix two incompatible theories here!). Thus
I might over-literally translate 2Kings 17:6: "In the ninth year of
Hoshea the following happened: the king of Assyria captured (QATAL)
Samaria; then he carried (WAYYIQTOL) the Israelites away to Assyria;
then he placed (WAYYIQTOL) them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." The added "the following
happened" indicates that the time is the reference point for the whole
verse, and potentially (though not actually in this case) for a much
longer narrative; the added "then"'s indicate Galia's new reference
times.

RF: Your important point stands: In English there are auxiliaries as "has"
and "have" which can help us determine the C, but these are lacking in
Hebrew. Therefore we need to be cautious.

<snip>

RF

Let me bring a quote from Broman Olsen (p 121) taking in Galia's (1) and (2):

"Tense asserts that RT has a uniform relationship to a deictic center (C),
as in (2), repeated in (5). The English SIMPLE PAST tense in (5a) asserts
that yawning and being old held at a RT prior to C (RT>C), the SIMPLE
PRESENT in (5b) that they are true at an RT concurrent with C (RT=C), and
the SIMPLE FUTURE in (5c) that they will subsequently be true (C>RT).

(5) (a)Jeanette yawned/was old. (past)
(b) Jeanette yawns/is old. (present)
(c) Jeanette will yawn/be old. (future)

The truth of the statements in (5) depends upon the situations holding at
the relevant time. The relation between RT and C is part of the
truth-conditional or semantic meaning and is therefore not cancelable."

The following points taken from Broman Olsen (pp 140-142) may be relevant
for Galia's (3)

Reichenbach's view of present perfect is discribed thus (p 140): "ET>RT=C"
Her view of present perfect is expressed on two planes, as tense and as
aspect (p 142):
"Tense: RT=C, Grammatical aspect: /ET^RT/@coda (=ET intersects RT at the
coda)"

While Reichenbach relates everything to time, Broman Olsen relates ET to
aspect.

PK: This does seem to be a step forward by Broman Olsen, but actually
I wonder if the difference is mainly one of terminology. The problem
is that (as Broman Olsen has realised, I am not sure if Reichenbach
did) ET may be a period and not a point in time. I assume that
"/ET^RT/@coda" is equivalent to "RT is at or after the end of ET" (it
CANNOT mean "RT is exactly at the end of ET", because "Peter has
arrived" may mean that his arrival was completed, which is the end of
ET, some time before the present which is RT=C). Apparently
Reichenbach's "ET>RT" means "RT is after ET" (though to me, with a
scientific background, greater time is always later!). Whereas
Reichenbach's "ET=RT" must mean, if ET is a period, that RT was some
time between the beginning and end of ET, which is surely the meaning
of "ET intersects RT at the nucleus". So what is the difference? Is
not aspect related to time? Of course the situation becomes more
complicated if RT or C is allowed to be a period rather than a point
in time - which may apply in Hebrew even if not in English.

RF: The following points taken from Broman Olsen (pp 135,142) may be
relevant for Galia's (4)

Broman Olsen describes Reichenback`s past perfect as (p 135): "ET<RT<C"
Her own view of past perfect is (p 142): "Tense: RT<C, Grammatical aspect:
/ET^RT/@coda (=ET intersects RT at the coda)"

As a further help I bring the following quote from Broman Olsen (p 118):

"My analysis differs from Reichenbach and Comrie in three main respects: it
eliminates the problematic distinction between absolute and relative tense,
it allows tense to relate to a C other than SP (speech time), and it
assigns the relation betwqeen RT and ET to aspect."

PK: It is nice to eliminate problematic distinctions when they are not
really there. But sometimes they are there at a fundamental level and
have to be described rather than eliminated! But many thanks for your
description of Broman Olsen's theory.

PK
>
>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.
>

RF
You could at least explain according to your theory why the QATALs of Psalm
function exactly as WAYYIQTOLs in other accounts - they bring the account
forwards, and how this is possible. You could also comment on the use of
YIQTOLs.

PK: Are you referring again to Psalm 105, or to the psalms in general?
One possible explanation is that Psalm 105 is written in a rather
different dialect, either "late Biblical Hebrew" or some special
poetic form of the language. I know that these later psalms are
generally understood, even by relatively conservative scholars, to be
post-exilic. As various people have recently pointed out, Hebrew verb
forms started to be used somewhat differently in the "post-exilic"
prose books from their usages in earlier books. One might well expect
to note this change of usage in the Psalms also. In the analysis I
presented some months ago of the narrative sections of Psalm 78, I
noted that WAYYIQTOL was used mostly in the same way as in
"pre-exilic" prose narrative (I accept that there is no good separate
argument for dating this earlier than Psalm 105). So, just as Galia
has wisely refused to be drawn into discussion of poetry, I am going
to refuse to comment further on material which may well be "late
Biblical Hebrew".


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page