Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: RE: Hebrew Syntax.

Dear Lee,

I appreciate your question because it reveals that I clipped and pasted a wrong example, one including a QATAL when I wanted to use a WAYYIQTOL. Examples (1) and (2) below may illustrate my point:

(1) Genesis 29:18 And Jacob loved (or, was in love with) Rachel

(2) Psalm 119.167 My soul keeps (QATAL) your statutes, for I love (WAYYIQTOL) them greatly

A few words for those on the list who are not familiar with the parameters for analysing aspect: We have to deal with two kinds of time, deictic and non-deictic time. Non-deictic time consists of two members, "event time" which is real time, and "reference time" which is conceptual time. The concept "tense" (= grammaticalization of location in time") is deictic and aspect is non-deictic.

When we speak or write about events we refer to them from a particular vantage-point that often is speech-time (or the time of writing). This vantage-point is called the "deictic point" (C). Tense is the relationship between the deictic point and the event, past tense - the event occurs before C, present tense - the event coincides with C, future tense - the events occurs after C. Note that past, present, and future *reference* is not necessarily past, present, and future *tense*. Only when a form has a particular function (e.g. past reference) and no other temporal function can it be called a tense. So, even though 90 % of the WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, they need not represent past *tense*.

An event takes some time, and this time from beginning to end is called "event time" (ET). This ET is non-deictic because it is not seen in relation to the deictic point (C), but only in relation to its own beginning and end. Both tense and event time represent real time. When we refer to events, not only do we describe them in relation to a deictic point, but we tend to make just a part of the event visible for the reader or listener. Two Examples (3) and (4) may illustrate the point:

(3) Jill was reading the Hebrew Bible.

(4) Jill has read the Hebrew Bible.

In (3), what is made visible is a small section of progressive reading, with no beginning or end being seen. In (4), only the end of the reading event is made visible and no progressive action is visible. Example (3) represents the imperfective aspect in English and (4) represents the perfective aspect. The conceptual time "reference time" can be compared to a pointing finger, either it  points to the nucleus of the event and makes a part of the  progressive event visible, or it points  to its coda, making the end visible. In a scientific language we can say that reference time intersects event time; when the perfective aspect is used in English, reference time intersects event time at the coda, and when the imperfective aspect is used, reference time intersects event time at the nucleus.

In English, the aspect used help us make an un-ambiguous interpretation of whether the event was terminated or not at RT. The Hebrew aspects are much more complex, and we cannot know on the basis of the aspect that is used whether an event is terminated or not at RT. However, if RT intersects ET at the nucleus, we can conclude that the verb is inperfective in Hebrew. Both in example (1) and (2) the love continued after RT, and it suggests that the two WAYYIQTOLs are imnperfective.

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

> >
> >  
> > The only restrictions I have found after analysing the
> > 60.000 finitie and infinite forms of the Tanach is that conative
> > situations (something is attempted but not carried out) and
> > situastions where one verb intersects another verb (as in "when
> > John entered, Peter was reading the paper") can only be
> > expressed by the imperfective aspect (YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL and
> > WAYYIQTOL), and not with the perfective aspect (QATAL and WEQATAL).
> > (BTW. In most states expressed by a WAYYIQTOL, the state is
> > intersected in the middle (imperfective aspect),and not at the end,
> > as in (1). The point in (1) is not that the slave "had
> > loved" but that he "does" love. Even when the
> > reference of a state is past, the intersection is usually in the
> > middle.
> >
> > (1)
> > Deuteronomy 15:16 And it must occur (WAYYIQTOL) that in the case he
> > says (YIQTOL) to you, "I will not go out (YIQTOL) from your
> > company" because he does love (QATAL) you and your
> > household
> >
> > Dear
> > Rolf,
> > I am not
> > sure that I understand your point above, but I would point out that
> > Deut. 15:16 does not begin with Wayyiqtol; it begins with Weqatal
> > (WeHaYaH).  May I ask clarification? Which verb in Deut 15:16 is
> > intersecting and which is being intersected?
> > Thanks.
> > Lee R.
> > Martin