Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

PK
>I was glad to see that Rolf did also send his reply to the list,
>though separately so that I did not receive that copy until later. I
>am glad he has made public his praise of Alviero Niccacci, and I
>withdraw any suggestion in my reply below that he is saying one thing
>in public and another in private. Nevertheless, this praise still
>seems a strange contrast to the criticism he wrote in his reply to
>Alviero.

RF
My post should have been sent to the list and not to you. When I discovered
the error, I sent it to the list. My semester is approaching with five
different languages to prepare for, so I will limit the number of posts.


>PK: Interesting, you are coming close to what I was accusing you of in
>my comments on yours to Prof. Niccacci (which I wrote before reading
>this one). That is, you are accepting that you cannot find any
>semantic distinguishing factors between Hebrew verb forms (though not,
>as I was suggesting, that this is impossible in principle), and
>agreeing that a study based on pragmatics rather than semantics is
>helpful. But it does seem rather odd to me that you are publicly
>(on-list) criticising Prof. Niccacci for taking this approach while on
>the same day privately (off-list to me) calling his approach
>"extremely valuable" and proposing to do something similar yourself. I
>don't think he even claimed that he was describing the *meaning" of
>verb forms rather than their *use*, which makes your accusations of
>circularity baseless.

RF
I see I did not get my point accross successfully, so allow me a few
comments. I find discourse analysis to be a valuable tool to learn the
linguistic convention of Hebrew, to see which forms were used for different
purposes. Alviero's work is extremely valuable in this respect, not least
for all his examples from the text itself. What I do criticize, however
(and I am not criticizing persons but procedures) is to ascribe *a
particular meaning* to verbs with a particular morphology *on the basis of
use* in some texts. When one say that WEYIQTOL  is a conjugation of its
own, this is impossible if *meaning* is not ascribed to the *form*
WEYIQTOL.

Let me illustrate my point. By observing WEYIQTOLs in a few instances
("few" in contrast to all the examples in MT), one discovers that they tend
to follow imperatives and have modal meaning. This is a fine observation
regarding their use (but one has to expand the number of WEYIQTOLs studied
until one has looked at all examples to see if this is the typical use).
But on the basis of these few examples, to draw the conclusion that the
WEYIQTOLs constitute a conjugation of their own, apart from YIQTOL, and
that the meaning of *the form* is modality, is hopelessly circular for the
following reasons:

(1) No procedure for distinguishing between the conjunction WE prefixed to
a YIQTOL and the WE- element of WEYIQTOL has been worked out.

(2) No procedure for finding out whether the modal meaning is pragmatic
(due to the context) or semantic (connected with the form) has been worked
out.

(4) The fact that most, or all WEYIQTOLs occur in direct speech has not
been accounted for (it is more difficult to distingiush between indicative
and subjunctive in direct speech than in other genres).

The only reason for drawing these far-reaching conclusions regarding
WEYIQTOL, that it is a conjugation of itself and that all WEYIQTOLs are
modal, is *the use* of the form in a few instances, and that more and more
forms examined have a meaning compatible with modality. This is circular
reasoning! Exactly the same problems are found with WEQATAL  and WAYYIQTOL,
although arguments regarding WAYYIQTOL as a conjugation of its own, have a
stronger basis because of the Masoretic pointing and because of the pattern
in the use of most of the examples.

I cannot *prove* that Hebrew just has two conjugations and that my
definition of YIQTOL and QATAL is the correct one. But in my work leading
to this conclusion, I have, by the use of clearly defined procedures,
sought to reduce circularity as much as possible. It is accepted by
linguists that it is meaningful to analyze language in the light of TAM
(tense-mood-aspect). By using sound procedures, I claim to be able to
eleminate one of the TAM members from Hebrew. No single form codes for a
particular tense. And the M-member is also eliminated  because no form
codes for a particular mood (save short YIQTOLs, but here we face the
problem that WAYYIQTOL tend to prefer the short form as well). The only
member of TAM that remains, is aspect, and after eliminating the other two,
it is reasonable to look for aspectual differences in the verbal system.
Still by the use of elimination (comparable to falsifying in the natural
sciences) I claim to be able to demonstrate that, while aspectual
characteristics can be found inside the system, the verbs are not concerned
with event time (nucleus view versus coda view) as the English aspects are.
So I have to find another generalization than is the case with English
verbs. To reduce circularity, the described procedure has been followed and
*all* the Hebrew verbs is the basis for the conclusions.

Because of "the problem of induction", it is much easier to eliminate
(falsify) than positively to demonstrate something. This also affects my
claim of the existence of just two aspects and my definition of them. The
best we can do when we assess such a claim, is to test it in two respects,
(1) Can it account for all the data?, and (2) Does it have a good
explanatory power?

Other claims should be tested in the same way, and the four-component
model, in my view, is particularly week as regards (1).
(a) Nobody has so far accounted for the fact that the WE- and WAYY-
elements in WEQATAL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL in *all* occurrences function
exactly as the conjunction would have functioned.
(b) Nobody has shown what the -AY- element of WAYY- is, let alone its
supposed power to change the meaning of a verb. (Henry Churchyard has done
a very fine work, but has not conclusively shown that -AY- is an element
that can change the meaning of YIQTOL; this was not his goal.)
(c) Nobody has been able to point to a characteristic that is found in
*all* instances of WAYYIQTOL or WEYIQTOL but which is not found in YIQTOL,
or a characteristic that is found in *all* instances of WEQATAL, but which
is not found in QATAL. In other words, nobody has been able to point to a
single characteristic that distinguish *four* conjugations from each other.

My basic reason for claiming that there is not only one but two
conjugations, is the morphology (prefix-form versus suffix-form). Both
conjugations can, and are used with past, present and future meaning, and
as indicative and subjunctive, but there are of course particular petterns.
However, there are differences in the use of the forms that distinguish
them. And these diffeerences can even be used as a test for the value of my
distinction between two aspects and my definition of them. My aspectual
view predicts the following:

(1) Only YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL can express conative situations.

(2) Only YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL can have the imperfective
characteristics as (a) does in the following sentence, "While Peter was
writing (a) his E-mail, Rolf entered the room."

If QATAL or WEQATAL are found in the above situations, my definition of the
Hebrew conjugations is wrong.


RF
>A very important question would then be: Can we find any semantic
>(uncancelable) property in YIQTOL and QATAL? In the English aspectual
>model
>of Broman Olsen we have such properties. The perfective aspect shows
>definitely that an event has ended at C (the deictic point) while the
>imperfective aspect shows definitely that it has not ended. This
>inticates
>that the two aspects are different ways of viewing (or presenting) the
>internal time of an event, as Comrie defines them.
>To test YIQTOL  and QATAL for this, we can make the following
>prediction.
>If there is a semantic difference between YIQTOL and QATAL as it is
>between
>the English imperfective and perfective asopect, we expect to find
>that
>YIQTOLs *only* are used with events and states that are not terminated
>at
>C, and that QATAL is used for events and states that are terminated. A
>test
>shows that the prediction holds in many, but far from all cases.
>(Alviero
>is right when he says that the verbs do not describe the events as
>they
>objectively are, but only the way the reporter chooses to depict
>them.)
>
>PK: Now I am confused: I thought that in Broman Olsen's model aspect
>was to do with the relationship between ET and RT, and was independent
>of the relationship between RT and C which is the domain of tense. Thus
>the definition I was working on was more like "The perfective aspect
>shows definitely that an event has ended at RT (the reference time)
>while the imperfective aspect shows definitely that it has not ended".

RF
Your observation is correct, my C's in this paragraph is a "printing error"
and should be replaced by RT.


snip


>
>RF:... What then, do
>the patterns represent? The same that is the reason for the pattern of
>infinitives and participles, namely, on linguistic convention. Several
>grammars view YIQTOL and WEQATAL on the one hand, and QATAL and
>WAYYIQTOL
>as similar, or quite similar in meaning, The reason is a similar use,
>and
>that is true. But this need not be explained as a converting force of
>WE-
>and WAYY- or that these prefixes signal an opposite meaning from the
>forms
>without prefixes. Given my definition of aspects, the reason for the
>use of
>QATAL  and WAYYIQTOL in past contexts and YIQTOL and QATAL in future
>contexts, can be that both aspects can be used in these "unmarked"
>situations without any problems of meaning. And the reason why past
>contexts start with QATAL and continues with WAW+YIQTOL while future
>contexts starts with YIQTOL and continues with WAW+QATAL can be
>explained
>as convention, a way to order the parts of speech in a language
>lacking
>tenses but having aspects. The use of YIQTOL with past meaning and
>QATAL
>with future meaning can be explained by discourse function, word
>order,
>genre (e.f. many QATALs with future meaning in prophetic texts) and
>foreground, background etc.
>(Even when persens have defined four (or five) conjugations solely on
>the
>basis of aspect, tense has been lurking in the background. One good
>advice
>for those working to find the number of conjugations, is to look at
>the
>role *tense* (and I mean "tense", not "time") plays in one's model.
>Either
>it should be discarded completely if one thinks it is absent in
>Hebrew, or
>one should allways keep in mind the influence it has on the
>conclusions if
>it is used. The way in-between, when one uses tense without admitting
>it or
>being conscious of it, is very common - and dangerous.)
>
>PK: My objection to your claimed identity between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL
>is not based on tense (for both can be past, present or future) but on
>aspect. You have described YIQTOL as imperfective in the sense that
>"THE IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT REPRESENTS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF A SMALL PART OF
>THE SITUATION  WITH DETAILS VISIBLE", and that is a definition within
>which I can work. But I do not see any way in which WAYYIQTOL, in its
>most common occurrences within narrative, can be described as
>imperfective according to this definition. In a great many cases
>events descibed with WAYYIQTOL take place in a quick series viewed at
>a distance with no details visible. For example, consider the very
>common WAYYAMOT "and he died" (or perhaps "and he will die"). This is
>rarely if ever accompanied by a description of the process or means of
>dying or with any event that took place while the person was at the
>point of death. It is often part of a chain of WAYYIQTOLs, generally
>preceded by an event which took place during the person's life and
>followed by an event which certainly took place after he was dead e.g.
>his burial. This is a classic example of perfective aspect, or at the
>very least of neutral or undefined aspect, and I think I am basing my
>objections not on "English" aspect but on your definition of aspect in
>Hebrew. Do you really consider WAYYAMOT in such instances to be
>imperfective, and how can you justify that?


Your arguments above are logical, and I have the following comments:

If we read a  portion of the Hebrew narrative text, the first suggestion
that would come up in our English or Norwegian mind, is that WAYYIQTOLs are
preterits. If we used this as a working hypothesis we would find hundreds
upon hundreds of examples compatible with it. However, if we systematically
studied *all* WAYYIQTOLs, we would find the counterexamples, and had to
discard the hypothesis. After that we naturally would think: WAYYIQTOL
probably represents the perfective aspect. If we again studied all the
examples we would find many examples with a nucleus view rather than a coda
view. But if my definition of the Hebrew aspects is correct, all the
nucleus views we found should not lead us to discard the hypothesis.

The thing that lead me to be critical both to the preterit and the
perfective hypotheses when I started to work on my mag. art. thesis in
1992, was morphology, the line of demarcation in the verbal systems of the
cognate languages (save Accadian where the situation is more unclear) and
in Hebrew as well, goes between the prefix-form and the suffix-form. A
prefix-form could in time take the meaning of  a suffix form, vice versa
(though nobody has demonstrated this), but because of this difference, I
wanted to be critical to the traditional explanation. We therefore have the
arguments for perfectivity on the one hand and the arguments for
imperfectivity (WAYYIQTOL is a prefix-form just as YIQTOL) on the other. So
how can we find any clues?

First of all, we need to keep in mind Alviero's important dictum that the
event itself is outside the language. In truth-conditional linguistics the
portrayal of the event cannot be contrafactual, but the reporter can still
present the situation from different viewpoints. The best tools to test the
system is telic or semelfactive verbs as your example with MWT. But before
we discuss this example we need to do some reasoning. Even in some
languages where aspects have a definition similar to the English one, we
find uses which are surprising to some observers.
Consider the following situation in tenseless Mandarin Chinese:

(1) Men shang zie-zhe sige zi

    Literally: "door on write ZHE 4 CL character"
    Translation: "Four characters are written on the door."


The ZHE is the marker for the imperfective aspect, and the focus is on the
stage after the final point of the situation, i.e. it is resultative. In
Hebrew we have the binyan Piel with such a meaning (resultative and
factitive). Hebrew does not have a perfect similar to the English one (the
end of an event is passed and the resulting state is stressed) but the Piel
binyan evidently has some characteristics of English perfect. There can be
no doubt that what is resultative and factitive play an important role in
the Semitic languages. Important traits can often be expressed in different
ways, and is it possible that this trait can be expressed *aspectually* as
well? Look at the following examples:

(2) Job 3:3  "Let the day perish (YIQTOL) in which I was born (YIQTOL), and
the night that said (QATAL),  'A man-child is conceived (QATAL).'

(3) Job 15:7   "Are you the firstborn (YIQTOL) of the human race? Were you
brought forth (QATAL) before the hills?

(4) Is. 51:2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you
(YIQTOL); for he was but one when I called him, but I blessed him and made
him many.

To bear or give birth must either be viewed as semelfactive or telic verbs.
But in (2), (3), and (4) they are used with past meaning, in (4) also in
the Piel. The most likely explanation of the use of these verbs is the
resultative one. Not only the act of bearing is stressed but also the
result.

In addition to the numerous resultative examples with the imperfective
aspect, there is another use that is quite special, namely that a part of
the event is focused upon but the end is ignored; and this occurs in past
contexts. It is true that each language must be studied in its own right,
but a comparison with cognate languages may help us catch how the semitic
mind worked. For example, in Aramaic we very often find the two participles
)MR and (NH ("he answered and said"). The end of the event was reached in
each case but that is ignored. One example where the end came before C but
where it is ignored is (5)

(5) Dan. 4:12 (9) Its foliage was beautiful, its fruit abundant, and it
provided food for all. The animals of the field found shade (YIQTOL) under
it, the birds of the air nested (YIQTOL) in its branches, and from it all
living beings were fed (YIQTOL).

In Dan 4 we find the following forms with past meaning:

QATAL 20
WEQATAL 2
PARTICIPLE ACTIVE 12
PARTICIPLE PASSIVE 1
QATAL+PARTICIPLE 3
YIQTOL 17

The resultative meaning is evident in (6) where TWB (Heb $WB) ("return") is
telic.

(6) Dan. 4:36 At that time my reason returned (YIQTOL) to me; and my
majesty and splendor were restored (YIQTOL) to me for the glory of my
kingdom. My counselors and my lords sought me out (YIQTOL), I was
reestablished (QATAL) over my kingdom, and still more greatness was added
(QATAL) to me.


Then back to Hebrew and your example MWT, which I take as telic.

(7) Josh. 24:29  After these things Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the
LORD, died (WAYYIQTOL), being one hundred ten years old.

In (7) the event had factually reached its end, and RT comes before C. Can
this WAYYIQTOL  be imperfective? Yes! Consider (8)

(8) Job 3:11  "Why did I not die (YIQTOL) at birth, come forth from the
womb and expire (YIQTOL)?

If YIQTOL consistently expresses the imperfective aspect, we have two telic
verbs with past meaning and the imperfective aspect. But looking at Daniel,
this is not difficult to explain; the verbs simply are resultative. There
is nothing in the MT suggesting that a part of man survives death, but it
was very important for the Jew of old to be buried in a grave, suggesting
that hope was combined with this. Expressions as "You are about to lay
(participle) with your fathers" (Deuteronomy 31:16); "I will gather you to
your fathers" ( 2 Kings 22:20) etc. suggest that the state following death
was being stressed. Thus the imperfectivity of many WAYYIQTOLs both in Piel
and other binyanim can defended on the basis of their being resultative. A
Hebrew example of resultative QAL is (9).


(9) Josh. 7:6  Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell (WAYYIQTOL) to the
ground on his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the
elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads.

The adverbial shows that the event NPL is not punctiliar because it lasted
several hours (iterativity is not likely). One meaning of NPL given in
lexica is "lie". However, I am not aware of a single example where this
meaning is evident in the root itself but is found when the word is a
participle, a YIQTOL or a WAYYIQTOL. Ithink the lexical meaning is "fall",
but the participle or imperfective aspect can stress the result.

However, in more instances of WAYYIQTOL I believe that we find the same
perspective as in the use of the two participles (NH and )MR in Aramaic,
and in Dan 4:12. The end is not focused upon because the narrative itself
implies a consecution of events with the end reached in each case. Only a
part of the action itself is focused upon, in order to present the
Aktionsart of the events.
This can also account for the several hundred examples of YIQTOL with past
meaning. Durativity is an Aktionsart term and should never be used to
explain aspect; a verb is either durative "by birth" or not durative. To
find an iterative, frequentative, or habitual explanation for these YIQTOLs
is often forced. I therefore find good reasons to say that all examples of
the prefix-conjugation with and without WAW are imperfective, and all
examples of the suffix-conjugation with and without WAW are perfective.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo