Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Randall Buth wrote:


>Rolf katav: >However, I have
>>found that Hebrew verbs can be classified in two groups (YIQTOL,WAYYIQTOL,
>>and WEYIQTOL in one, and QATAL  and WEQATAL in the other), each groups
>>having definite characteristics of each of the aspects. The YIQTOL  group
>>has imperfective characteristics and the QATAL  group has perfective
>>characteristics.
>
>You notice that that doesn't say anything:
>
>Group one conveys "L-ness"
>Group 2 conveys "M-ness"
>
>Try using your verbs for ordinary situations.
>Do they generate patterns like in the Bible?
>If not, why not?
>Or, what would happen if you rewrote and flipped a text around?
>**...
>ve-'amar elohim 'yehi or'   (against implicature='used to say')
>ve-haya or (against implicature='used to be')
>ve-yir'e et ha-or ki tov  (implicature='used to see', not vay-yar)
>ve-hivdil elohim ben ha-or uven ha-Hoshex (implicature='used to separate')
>vay-yiqra elohim et ha-or yom (implicature='called')
>ve-laHoshex yiqra layla. (implicature='used to call'!! Biblical writers
>don't do this. why?)
>ve-haya `erev ve-haya boqer yom eHad. (against implicature='used to be/was
>an open situation'. so how many first days were there?)

I cannot expect that you understand my model when you just have seen a
glimpse of it, and our foundations are so different. But I will try to
explain a few things.

First, I do not adopt the model of S.R. Driver, although his treatment of
WAYYIQTOL is much better than most modern treatments. Therefore I do not
need to translate as "he used to say" or "he proceeded to say" In a
translation for a general target group I would translate, "And God said
'Let light come to be'". In a study Bible where nuances are dealt with, I
could have translated, "And God proceeded to say 'Let light come to be'."
There is a difference between the understanding of a text and translating
it, and "proceeded to say" is not a good rendering of WAYYO)MER, but it is
much better (in this kind of translation) than "he said", and it would help
the reader see that Hebrew verbs are different from English ones.

My objections to the extensive use of WAYYIQTOL for the explanation of the
Hebrew verbal system is the lack of quality control, or rather, the lack of
awareness of the need to make a quality control.

There is no question that the events described by a series of WAYYIQTOLs
for the most part are terminated, past events - this is the very nature of
mainline narrative. To make a quality test we have to ask: What is it that
signals to the reader that the event is past and terminated? Is it lexical
meaning, is it verbal form, or is it the context? Most studies ignore these
questions, and conclude that it is verbal form - the WAYYIQTOLs represent
past tense, and/or the perfective aspect. This is in my view fallacious,
because one interpretation is chosen and others simply are ignored.

Let us illustrate the problem with the use of the Infinitive construct:

(1) Gen. 48:7 For when I came (B:BO)Y = in-my-to come) from Paddan, Rachel
to my sorrow died (METF - died)."

There can be no doubt that the 'come'-event was terminated at reference
time. But what is it that signals that? The Infinitive is indifferent both
to tense and aspect, so it does not signal anything regarding termination
or not. However, the Aktionsart is either telic or semelfactive, and the
verb of the following main clause is clearly past. So, on a pragmatic basis
(Aktionsart+context) do we conclude that the 'come'-action was terminated
at RT.


(2) Gen. 35:18 And as her soul was departing (B:CET NAP$FH - in-to go-out
her soul) (for she died ((METF - died)), she called his name Ben-on,

The verb YC) is telic or semelfactive, and the following verb is past, just
as in (1), but is the 'going-out'-event terminated at RT? The answer must
be no. And, why can we say that? Because of our knowledge of the world;
people do not give children names after their life has gone out. So here is
another factor (knowledge of the world) that is the most important for
understanding the nature of the event.

(3) Ex. 28:43 and they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they go
(B:BO)FM - in they to go) into the tent of meeting, or when they come near
(B:GI$TFM - when they-to come near) the altar to minister in the holy place;

First we have a telic or semelfative verb and then a durative one. Is the
'go into'-event and the 'com-near'-event termintated at RT? Certainly not,
both coincide with RT. How do we know? Because the verb before the first
Infinitive has future reference,and therefore must we even interprete the
verb which normally is telic/semelfactive, as durative. So the context is
the deciding factor.

(4) Judg. 11:26 While Israel dwelt (BE$EBET - in-to dwell) in Heshbon and
its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are
on the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover
them within that time?

There is no doubt that the 'dwelling'-event was terminated at speech-time,
but was it terminatet at RT. No, it coincided with RT. How do we know?
Because Y$B is a state, which by definition is durative, and the QATAL NCL
intersects Y$B before its end. In a translation for any target group, I
would have translated the Infinitive Y$B as "While Israel was dwelling".

There are certain *linguistic conventions* regarding the use of Infinitive
construct. One widespread use is the one we find above -
preposition-infinitive-pronoun. In Hebrew, Infinitive construct is not used
in mainline narrative, but no linguistic rule would have been broken if a
writer did just that. And here is my main point: If a series of Infinitive
constructs had been used in mainline narrative, the events would have been
past and terminated - as in (1) and a host of similar cases - but that
which signalled that would not have been the Infinitive, but some of the
other factors mentioned. Therefore we cannot from the fact that most
WAYYIQTOLs occur in narratives, describing situations that are past and
terminated, draw the conclusion that the WAYYIQTOLs has an intrinsic past
tense or perfective aspect. They may be time and/or aspect indifferent,
just as the Infinitives. I do not know of any study the last 100 years that
has investigated this, even being aware of the problem.

What prevents scholars from considering the points above (what in the
narrative that signal past termination), is the assumption that aspect in
Hebrew must be similar to aspect in English, and if that was the case,
imperfective verbs could not be used in mainaline narrative. In 1 Kings
6:2, an example in a previous post, the WAYYIQTOL of BNH *must*
betranslated ingressively "he started to build". The example from Genesis
2:21  *should be* translated "while he slept, God took... closed
up...formed". But in most cases the context does not clearly show such
nuances. So I call for an investigation of these passages: To which factors
are "past termination" achored?



>
>Press the system. I don't believe that a writer was allowed "100%
>subjective options" like above because the 95% implicatures are all being
>stomped on.
>[Look at the 'call' comparison. Your system would compare them in different
>'aspects'. What's worse is that comparing nouns would almost ALWAYS be
>compared in different aspects. Didn't the Hebrew speakers ever compare
>things within the same aspect? (Look at the house that Jack built. Look at
>the house that Tom is/was/wiil be in process of building.) What was the
>problem if these were 100% subjective?] (Yet while 'always' changing
>aspects, almost never with participles in narrative accounts.)
>My claim is that a 'learner/language use' carries the strong implicatures
>with them, which in fact gives a fuzzy meaning to the structure and
>prevents the mess written above. Like meaning within the lexicon, with its
>systemic networking, so are larger categories. Networked mappings and
>implicatures are what people get and what people use. Such is real
>language.
>
>ha-tuxal lixtov li sefer bisfat kena`an? `al `izzim o `al ohalim, nashim o
>milHamot.
>(Can you write me a letter? ... or tell me what happened yesterday or last
>week.)
>



When I say that YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL  can be
used for any situation, past, present and future, this is of course in
principle. What I mean is that while the conjugations themselves have no
restrictions, there are reasons why particular verb forms tend to be used
in particular contexts. The most important is linguistic convention (e.g.
HINNE + participle is almost always future), then there are different
discourse functions that tend to use particular forms. If there are two
aspects, and their use is in principle free, it is natural that patterns
will be created in the use of verb forms.

Another thing to take into account is that particular nuances can be
conveyed either by aspect or by lexicon/Aktionsart combined with the
context and/or a knowledge of the world. A frequentative situation is for
instance described in 1 Sam 1:3 by a WEQATAL and in 1:7 by a YIQTOL, but in
both cases is the primary factor an adverbial. One situation where the
conjugation is not optional, is the one which is conative, QATAL or WEQATAL
(+context) cannot be used for such situations, but QATAL/WEQATAL  can be
used if they are combined with words that explicitly state the conativity
(lexicon/Aktionsart).

By way of consclusion I will say the most important factor for verbal
communication is lexical meaning and Aktionsart. When this is combined with
the context and the knowledge of the world, the outline of the situation in
given. The aspect chosen does not add any new information, it is just a
viewpoint, but the combination of this particular aspect with the other
factors will help the reader to see the finer nuances of a situation.
So the combination of aspect (perfective or perfective), modal markers,
BINYANIM, the Vendlerian categories (where singularity/plurality, and
definiteness/indefiniteness of subject/object plays an important role),
lexical meaning, context, and knowledge of the world, is in reality a new
alfabet (the Vendlerian categories have an alfabet of its own). By
different combinations different nuances are conveyed.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo