Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Matthew,

Se my comments  below:


> Hi Rolf,
>
> Some brief answers:
>
> >  As you both correctly say, linguistic theory must play an important role
> in
> >  the study of BH. However, the theory we use should function as a framework
> >  to which we can refer, and which can help us make our study orderly and
> >  systematic. A theory that implicitly has the linguistic answers we are
> >  seeking before we start to process our data, gives little insight. This
> >  means that the data have priority and the theory is just a device to order
> >  the data.
>
> I would think that there is in linguistics not much "pure data", unless one
> works in phonetics. The texts we have can only begin to be analysed with
> linguistic theories once an enourmous amount of implicit and explicit
> interpretation has been done. The very prerequisite that one knows BH before
> analysing it underlines the fact that there is no "view from nowhere" as
> they say. Take phonology in BH: it could seem to the uninitiated that
> providing BH (or Tiberian Hebrew) with prosodic and phological structure
> would be not too difficult, and that experts could agree. Quite the opposite
> in fact, it is extremely difficult and major disagreements still exist on
> many issues.

I am not sure what you mean by "pure data", but I reason this way: In 
order to have a reasoned opinion about Hebrew, there are five steps 
to take, 1) decision of which assupmtions to use, 2) collection of 
data, 3) definition of the angle of approach (what are we lookinbg 
for), 4) formation of theory, and 5) the application of the theory on 
the data.

When we work with unpointed texts, we need at the outset only 2). 
Without any theory we can see that there are two groups of finite 
verbs, the prefix-forms and the suffix-forms. We can see the a WAW is 
prefixed to a number of verbs of both groups, but there is no visible 
distinction between "WAYYIQTOL"  and "WEYIQTOL".

When we go the MT we can still collect data without any linguistic 
theory. On the basis of the  Masoretic pointing we see five (NB, not 
four) different groups of finite verbs (YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, 
QATAL  and WEQATAL). But there seem to be some inconsistency in the 
Masoretic work (several WEYIQTOLs have apocopated vowels and/or 
consonants and several WAYYIQTOLs are not apocopated in roots where 
apocopation is expected).

In order to learn something from the data I need 1), and I make the 
assumptions; Hebrew writers wrote to be understood,and the language 
can be studied by the help of normal linguistic tools. Then I need 
3), to define my approach, what am I looking for. The approach is 
simple: When the Masoretes by their pointing differentiated between 
three groups of the prefix-form (YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL,  and WAYYIQTOL) 
and two groups of the suffix-form (QATAL and WEQATAL) did they want 
to indicate that there were five different *semantic* groups, and not 
just two such groups (the prefix-form and the suffix-form)? Or were 
the prefixed WAWs just pragmatic markers (the conjunction waw which 
syntactically was needed)?

(Most hebraists think there are four different *semantic* groups, but 
interestingly, the four semantic groups do not conform with the five 
morphological groups of the Masoretes (WEYIQTOL and YIQTOL is viewed 
as one group while WEQATAL is viewed as two groups, the consecutive 
and the non-consecutive QATAL.)

After I have compared the five Masoretic groups with the two of the 
unpointed texts and have analysed all the verbs of the MT regarding 
temporal reference and mood, and made many syntactical observations 
(have defined my assumptions and my angle of approach) - first then 
do I need a theory 4), and I accept Griece's theory that "semantic 
meanings may not be cancelled without contradiction or reinforced 
without redundancy".


> >  What has surprised me more than once when I have read previous studies of
> >  Hebrew verbs, is the lack of interest in finding a theory that can help us
> >  distinguish between semantic factors  (factors having uncancellable
>  > meaning) and pragmatic  factors (factors having cancellable meaning,
> >  depending on the context). I am simply not aware of a single study with
> >  this approach.
>
> Have you seen the following:
> Baayen, R. Harald. 1997. The pragmatics of the 'Tenses' in Biblical Hebrew.
> Studies in Language 21 (2):245-285.
> I would also recommend reading Myhill's publications. At SBL this year there
> are several talks on the BH verb system. I can't go unfortunately.

Thank you very much for these references.


>  >
> >  Let me illustrate the need for the mentioned approach:
> >
> >  In unpointd texts there is no formal difference between WAYYIQTOL and
> >  WEYIQTOL (many WEYIQTOLs are apocopated).
> >  Therefore, assuming that YIQTOL
>
> What's a YIQTOL if your data is unpointed? Similarly, what is a WAYYIQTOL,
> QATAL, and so forth? You can't throw out the Tiberian bathwater and keep the
> morphophonological baby.

See above.

> >  represents the imperfective aspect, we cannot know from the original
> >  morphology whether WAYYIQTOL is an expression of the conjunction WAW+the
> >  imperfective aspect, or whether it repsesents something completely
> >  different, say, the perfective aspect.
>
> But if you stick to theory-less data, you can only assert that the unpointed
> text is allographemic between pointed wayyiqtol and weyiqtol. In an
> unpointed text how can one ever discover that WYQTL represents two different
> verbs?

As shown above, I do not presume there was a difference between 
WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL  before the Masoretes. I just note we have 
prefix-forms with WAW and suffix-forms with WAW.


>  >
>  > Three basic arguments have been used in favor of WAYYIQTOL representing
>  > the  perfective aspect, 1) most WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, 2)
> hundreds
> >  of WAYYIQTOL verbs occur as telic verb phrases, and 3) most WAYYIQTOLs
> seem
> >  to have the same function as QATAL..
>
> (1) yes, (2) depends on what you mean, but I think probably yes, (3) I could
> not agree with this. What do you mean by function?

In point 3) I made a reference to what several scholars have written; 
the WAYYIQTOL has past reference and/or represents the perfective 
aspect. I disagree with this, but it is a very common argument for a 
distinction between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL. In my view there are strong 
arguments in the favor of viewing the two forms as part of the same 
semantic group, which represents the imperfective aspect (The Hebrew 
"imperfective" is different from english "imperfective"; the Hebrew 
and English can, on the basis of analysis, be shown to be similar in 
three characteristics and different in three other characteristics.)

>  The use of theories that are prone to
> >  induce their theoretical load upon the data, would probably lead to the
> >  conclusion that WAYYIQTOL do represent the perfective aspect as does
> QATAL,
> >  Thus the conclusion is that WAYYIQTOL is *semantically* perfective (the
> >  perfectivity cannotbe cancelled).
> >
> >  However, consider the following data: I have lists of about 900 YIQTOLs
> and
> >  1.750 participles (most of them being active participles) with *past*
> >  reference. These are the same roots that are used as WAYYIQTOL ( for
> >  instance, )FMAR is used 2.600 times as WAYYIQTOL , tventy times as a
> >  participle,and ten times as YIQTOL, all  with past reference), and several
> >  hundreds occur in telic verb phrases. Most of the 8,000 participles occur
> >  in direct speech contexts, but 90 per cent of the participles occurring in
> >  "narrative" contexts have past reference.
>
> But this is an argument about the function of YIQTOL, not WAYYIQTOL. The
> question is what is the role of wayyiqtol.

That is true, but the data about participles and YIQTOLs show that 
the criteria that have been used to argue that WAYYIQTOL is 
semantically different from YIQTOL can be applied to YIQTOL and the 
participle as well. So why should there be a difference between 
WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL  when they fulfill the same criteria? In other 
words, if YIQTOLs and participles in great numbers can be used in 
past situations where reference time intersects event time at the 
coda (only the end is focussed upon), why should WAYYIQTOLs in the 
same situation be said to be different from the YIQTOLs?

The truth is (as far as I am informed) that nobody has been aware of 
the magnitude of YIQTOLs and participles that have the same 
characteristics as the WAYYIQTOLs, because nobody has bothered to 
analyze *large* numbers  of the forms.


> >  So the three argumnts presented above in favor of WAYYIQTOLs being
> >  perfective hold good in in the case of the mentioned YIQTOLs and
> >  participles as well.
> >  So the qustion arises: Is there a semantic reason (the
> >  form is inherrently perfective) for the past reference of WAYYIQTOL but a
> >  pragmatic reason (the context is the reason for the past reference) of the
> >  YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL? Or can it be that the past reference of the
> WAYYIQTOL
> >  is pragmatic as well, and that most textbooks are wrong?
>
> >  Generative grammar
> >  or Optimality theory or the like cannot answer these questions,
>
> Why not? Perhaps those working in these theories think they have answered
> these questions. Optimality theory as applied to syntax is still rather
> underdeveloped, and highly controversial in the views of many.

Recently there was a course in Optimality theory in Oslo, and the 
general view as to its usefulness was very negative. Perhaps half of 
the Norwegian linguists opt for generative grammar and the other half 
are egainst it. In my view there are too many unfounded assumptions 
in connection with both theories that are problematic, and therefore 
I for one will not use them in Hebrew studies.

>  but we need
> >  a simple and clearcut theory which can help us distinguish between
> >  pragmatic and semantic factors in a text.
>
> If there was such a theory someone would have found it by now. I would think
> that the pragmatic, semantic, and other factors in any text are highly
> interwoven. Imagine the text as a cake. Teasing out the pragmatics and
> semantics is like trying to extract the initial ingredients, like eggs and
> flour, from the baked cake. Texts are products of language, and whatever
> contributes to the production line influences the final product. Reverse
> engineering of language texts is thus never clean-cut.
>
> One final thought: Perhaps the criteria of cancellable/uncancellable is too
> severe on the data. Perhaps the use of prototype theory would be better.
> Thus we could suggest that wayyiqtol is prototypically past and perfective,
> etc.  Prototype theory is a very helpful way of analysing data, since it
> reflects very much how humans categorise the world around them.


Just try my (Grice's) theory on the English aspects. If "progressive 
action (I am not concerned with states in this context) with the end 
not visible" is the "semantic meaning" of the English imperfective 
aspect, we will expect to find that this is the case every time the 
present participle is used. This is exactly the case (except possibly 
in a few special cases that can be  linguistically explained)! If the 
characteristic of the English perfective aspect is that "the end of 
the event is reached and focussed upon", we will expect to find that 
this is the case every time English perfect is used (perfect, 
pluperfect, future perfect) is used. This is exactly the case!

We cannot know regarding a dead language whether criteria such as 
cancellable/uncancellable are too severe on the data. But these 
criteria works in the case of English and several other languages, so 
I prefer these down-to-the earth criteria in Hebrew studies rather 
than elusive and difficult theories . We should also note the the 
principle behind cancellability /uncancellability is what have been 
used to argue that WAYYIQTOL is semantically different from YIQTOL, 
so why should we not be allowed to test this principle to the full?

Please note, however, that, while "past tense" and "future tense" are 
universal semantic properties (even though all languages do not have 
tense) and are easy to define, "aspect" is not universal and need 
definition in each language. One of the most important errors in 
Hebrew studies, as I see it, is that Hebrew aspects have been 
presumed to have the same meaning as English aspects.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo