Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: b-hebrew digest: November 08, 2001

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: b-hebrew digest: November 08, 2001
  • Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:18:40 +0100


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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page