Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila AT helsinki.fi>]

Thanks, Rolf, for clarifying your view. This is a subject in which I am
very interested. I do not have any strong opinion on the Hebrew verbal
system myself, but I am kind of looking for one. I reply to your posting
to make a few points. I hope this is helpful, and I would appreciate an
answer. However, because of my time constraints, I do not promise a
prompt reply.

Rolf Furuli wrote:

<snip>
> INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
> 
> If we look at the use of the infinitives, we find that they do not have any
> *scope*, but they portray events much the same way QATAL does. The
> difference is that QATAL has a broad aspectual scope where the end of an
> event plays a role while the infinitive simply reveal the action as such
> without any particular scope. Let us use MWT, which is telic (or telic and
> dynamic) as an example. Consider (1) below:
> 
> (1) 1Kings 13:31 And after he had buried him, he said to his sons,  "When I
> die (INFINITIVE), bury me in the grave in which the man of God is buried;
> lay my bones beside his bones.
> 
> The infinitive is used in the normal way. the preposition signals a
> temporal clause, the suffix is subject, and what is made visible, simply is
> the death event without any focus on the internal structure of the event.
> It is possible to make this internal structure visible by using an
> infinitive, but then other elements have to be used in combination with the
> infinitive (the rule is that the internal structure is not visible when an
> infinitive is used) An example where the internal structure is made visible
> by pragmatic means is (2)
> 
> (2) 2Chr. 24:22 Thus Joash the king did not remember the kindness which
> Jehoiada, Zechariah's father, had shown him, but killed his son. And when
> he was dying (INFINITIVE), he said,  "May the LORD see and avenge!"
> 
> The reason for the rendering "when he was dying" is pragmatic. The phrase
> is literally "and as he to die", but because our knowledge of the world
> tells us that a person does not speak after he has died, we interpret the
> infinitive to refer to the point before he died. But this can not be
> gathered from the infinitive *alone*.

These two examples show nicely that the infinitive construct with K or B
(assuming there is no difference here between the two prepositions) is
aspectually neutral, i.e. non-aspectual.

<snip>

> PARTICIPLES
> 
> While the infinitive and perfect in English (and I claim the same is true
> for infinitive construct and QATAL and WEQATAL in Hebrew) only reveal the
> action as such (not as a point, but rather as a blob, as Comrie says)
> without revealing any of its structure, this is not true with the English
> participle. Please consider (5).
> 
> (5) (a) They were REACHING  the tops.
> 
>     (b) They were REACHING the top.
> 
>     (c) She was REACHING the tops.
> 
>     (d) She was REACHING the top.
> 
> The participle reveals progressive action, and that is the reason why it
> seldom is used to describe states (We say; "Peter loved Mary" and not
> #"Peter was loving Mary"). The participle focuses on a small part of the
> progressive action and makes it visible, and that is what I mean by "a
> closeup view with details visible". The force of the participle can be
> described as (5) (e) below:
> 
> (5) (e)
> xxxx = focus of the progressive action of the English and Hebrew participle
> B = beginning
> E = end
> 
>         ---B-xxx--------E
> 
>         ---B----xxx-----E
> 
>         ---B--------xxx-E
> 
<snip>

> Consider the four clauses of (5).
> 
> Regarding 5a. The progressive action  in this clause with plural/definite
> subject and object leads to the interpretation that the group climbed top
> after top.

Maybe this is not relevant here, but it could also mean that the group
was just on the point of reaching all the tops simultaneously (different
members reaching different tops).

> Regarding 5b. The progressive action in this clause with plural definite
> subject and singular definite object make two interpretations possible. (1)
> The group (they) were on the point of reaching the top but had not reached
> it, or (2) several persons were reaching the top one after another, but the
> last person had not reached the top at the point that is focussed upon.
> 
> Regarding 5c. The progressive action in the clause with singular definite
> subject and plural definite object leads to the interpretation that she
> reached one top and then another and so forth. But she had not reached the
> last top.
> 
> Regarding 5d. The progressive action in this clause with singular definite
> subject and object leads to just one possible interpretation: She was on
> the point of reaching the top, but had not yet reached it.
> 
> Several of the interpretations above are based on the necessity to account
> for the progressive action somewhere. The English participle shuns
> beginning and end, so its progressive nature must be accounted for between
> these points, or it can be accounted for by several actions being
> accomplished, but not the last one, as in (5) (a). I have not studied all
> occurrences of the Hebrew participle but it seems that it behaves exactly
> as its English counterpart as far as progressive action is concerned.

A few observations. The fact that the progressiveness must be specially
accounted for in these examples comes from the verb being punctual
(except in 5d). A punctual cannot be opened by an imperfective without
repeating the action. This would not necessarily apply to other verb
types. (5d) is a nice illustration of aspectual polysemy of the verb
reach - here it is viewed as an
accomplishment. This shift in its aspectual meaning (or "Aktionsartical"
if you prefer) is signaled by the exclusion of iteration because both
the
subject and the object are singular.

> We can illustrate the Hebrew use by MWT, NKH.
MWT, or verbs of dying in general can often be aspectually
accomplishments. A punctual (achievement) might be more revealing.

<snip>

> (6) (c) Psa. 136:10 to him who smote (PARTICIPLE) the first-born of Egypt,
> for his steadfast love endures for ever;

I am not sure if NKH is better an achievement or accomplishment
(punctual or not). But in any case, the whole chain of participles in
this psalm have an identifying function. I strongly suspect that in this
use the imperfective (or progressive) use of the participle is no longer
necessary. The imperfective aspect would hardly have good textual fit in
most of the participles. Also, there is no perfective or non-progressive
participle in Hebrew to contrast with this. The only perfective
alternative would be to use a relative clause. While it might be
possible to contend that the object is plural in the participles of
achievement and accomplishment verbs, any focus on the internal
structure would fade in the background. By analogy one would suspect
that the use would extend to singular objects also, as this structure is
not rare, and could be considered one of the prototypical foci. Thus one
would expect the participle to be non-aspectual here.

If NKH is considered a punctual verb and the participle an imperfective,
one would have to conclude that the first-born were smitten not at the
same time. If it is not punctual but is imperfective, we do not
necessarily know on the basis of this verse alone, if they died.

> (6) (d) Gen. 48:21 Then Israel said to Joseph,  "Behold, I am about to die
> (PARTICIPLE), but God will be with you, and will bring you again to the
> land of your fathers.
> 
> The examples (6) (a), (b), (c), and (d) are similar to (5) (a), (b), (c)
> and (d). The most interesting example is of course (6) (d) where the
> subject is singular and definite and the verb is transitive and
> dynamic/telic. The focus is on a point imediately before the event, just as
> in the clause "she was reaching the top". While the nature of the English
> and Hebrew participles are similar, there is also a difference. Please
> consider (7).

Here again, the MWT in the participle in (6d) is durative
(accomplishment).

> (7) 2Sam. 14:7 And now the whole family has risen against your handmaid,
> and they say,  'Give up the man who struck (PARTICIPLE) his brother, that
> we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew (QATAL)';

This is an identifying use of the participle as (6c). The same comments
apply.

> 
> How shall we interpret the participle in (7)? In truth-conditional
> linguistics. a literal translation of the participle in (7) would be
> problematic in English. A sentence like (8) would be strange or impossible.
> 
> (8) #Last january Rick was killing his wife, and He was sentenced to 20
> years in prison because of the murder.
> 
> Because a QATAL is parallel with the participle in (7), it cannot mean that
> the man "was on the point of killing his brother", but the case was that
> the killing actually had taken place. One alternative could be to say that
> the participle is punctual (as some do)

What about aspectually neutral in this construction?

>, but I would strongly object to
> such an interpretation, because this is against the progressive nature of
> the participle (and would be ad hoc explanation)- and I assume that Hebrew
> is a coherent language where one meaning of a form cannot be the diametral
> opposite of its essence.

Oppositions can be neutralized in some contexts. This is a concept very
familiar from phonology, and applies here as well.

> Therefore the progressive nature of the participle
> must be accounted for somwhere. I see two alternative views: (a) The action
> is resultative, i.e. we are led through the end of the striking and the
> result is focused upon.

If the result is focused on, not just allowed, and the internal
structure is not revealed in this context, why not view it as a
perfective? Sounds pretty perfective to me. Do you see any difference to
a perfective in terms of the informational content or markedness, or in
any way (apart from morphology)?

>(b) The striking is viewed as something durative;
> i.e. the Aktionsart of NKH is not punctual but durative, and the focus is
> on the progression of the striking, and the end is ignored, because it is
> implied (by to the Aktionsart of the verb).

I fail to see how a verb with a FOCUS on the progression of the striking
would have textual fit here.

> I see no indications of
> resultativity here in this Hiphil participle, and because the participle
> tends to shun both beginning and end, I exclude (a). Then only (b) remains,
> and this explanation is theoretically logical because punctuality is not a
> semantic property; i.e. any verb that is viewed as punctual can have a
> durative interpretation as well.

Actually no, not every punctual can have a durative interpretation.
Fanning, for example, divides Vendler's achievements into climaxes and
punctuals on the basis of the verb's capability of receiving a durative
interpretation. Here he follows Östergaad. I view the difference as the
potential of the verb for aspectual polysemy.

(References: Buist Fanning: Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, p.
154-162.
Frede Östergaard: The Progressive Aspect if Danish. In
Aspectology (1979), p. 90-91.
Kimmo Huovila: Towards a Theory of Aspectual Nesting for New Testament
Greek, p. 27-28)

> A similar example  where a part of the
> action expressing progression is focused upon while the end is ignored even
> though the action is past, is "smote" ("was smiting") of Psalm 136:10
> (Example (6) (c)).

Possible in principle. But, other things being equal, a perfective would
have a better textual fit. What do you think would have been a
perfective alternative? Would one have to use a subordinated clause? If
so, would this not tend to neutralize the aspect in actual use?

> 
> THE ASPECTS
> 
> The present participle in English is viewed as an expression of the
> imperfective aspect, but it is hardly a *grammaticalized* aspect because it
> can be used attributively as well. The same is true with the Hebrew
> participle, which has a function that is quite similar to its English
> counterpart.

Agreed. But why not apply this also to your (7)?

> In Hebrew, however, the aspects are grammaticalized, the
> prefix form represents the imperfective aspect and the suffix-form
> represents the perfective aspect. The fact that Hebrew has grammaticalized
> aspects while English has not, suggests that English and Hebrew aspects are
> different. In fact, while most of the functions of the English and Hebrew
> participles are similar, a great difference is that the English participle
> cannot portray past situations of telic and dynamic/telic verbs (example
> (8)) while the Hebrew can portray such situations (examples (6) (c) and
> (7).

Possibly not important here, but your (8) is not necessarily strange
because of aspect alone. One can easily construct a sentence with the
same aspectual semantics, which is natural: "Last year I was building a
house, and now I live in it." (8) is bad simply because of bad textual
fit.

> It is important to note that the Hebrew participle is *not* an aspect
> because it is not concerned with beginning and end; it is only a verbal
> noun. The reason why the Hebrew participle by some is viewed as an aspect
> (the imperfective one), is that it focuses on a small part of the action
> and makes visible the progression of this action just as the imperfective
> aspect does.

I would view the participle as sometimes aspectual, but not in every
function, especially the less verbal ones.

<snip>

> The scope of the imperfective aspect
> 
>         (a)---B-xxx--------E
> 
>         (b)---B----xxx-----E
> 
>         (c)---B--------xxx-E
> 
>         (d)xxx-B------------E
> 
>         (e)---Bxxx---------E (beginning included)
> 
>         (f)---B---------xxxE
> 
>         (g)---B-----------xExx (end included)

Well, in (g) are you saying that the end is included WITHIN the scope of
predication? That would make it a perfective. Note that (e) and (f) do
not deny the possibility - thus the perfective is more marked
semantically (except for punctuals).

<snip>

> Consider (9) (g) which is resultative/factitive.
> 
> (9) (g) Mark 2:5 (NRSV) When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the
> paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven (present)."

This one is an interesting find. But this example alone is not quite
convincing. It could be seen as a performative, where present indicative
is often used in Greek, despite its aspect. Or even futuristic, which
may be another context of presents used in a rather perfective way.
(Both of these are controversial solutions, but I see Greek verb forms
as combining aspect and tense, and think that tense can have an
influence on aspectual usage, though aspect is primary.) A third way of
analyzing this would be to see this as a lexical peculiarity where the
present can also describe a state as with hHKW, making the verb
aspectually polysemous.

Can you find more examples of this kind, or something more persuasive,
in any language? I would be very interested.

> In addition to the two points above I would like to add that the
> traditional explanation of the problematic WAYYIQTOL is based upon two
> faulty premises:
> (a) Hebrew aspects function exactly as English aspects.
> (b) Narrative accounts where terminated events occur in consecution can
> only be described by an aspect or tense where the end is included.
> 
> If these premises are discarded, there is nothing that prevents us from
> vieweing WAYYIQTOLs as normal YIQTOLs + WAW, that is, as imperfective
> aspects where the end is not included.

What about testing this with punctual verbs that show no aspectual
polysemy? (Or would you conclude that they do, based on your theory - is
this circular?)
Could we assume that with no contextual indications, a verb that is
practically always punctual, will be punctual unless the context (not
the form alone) indicates otherwise?

How does your theory account for textual fit? Sometimes it is hard to
see the YIQTOL forms as being imperfective, because of no apparent
textual fit (meaning WAYYIQTOLs with verbs such as MC( ). This is a
reason why I cannot quite follow your theory on all YIQTOLs being
imperfective, but then again, I have not made any rigorous study myself.

Kimmo