Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
  • Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:51:28 +0100

Dear Bryan,

In order to give an adequate answer I need to point out some basic weaknesses in peoples' dealing with aspects. I have already claimed that a basic weakness in modern studies which argue that Semitic verbs represent tenses, is the lack of systematic distinction between past reference and past tense (and future as well). There is a similar basic weakness in studies which argue that Semitic verbs represent aspects, namely the lack of analysis of the concept "aspect". Very often, all that is done, is to use the vague and wrong definition of B. Comrie (He confuses Aktionsart and aspect), and this often leads to the view that the perfective and imperfective aspects are mutually exclusive.

In my thesis I define tense as the relationship between reference time and the deictic centre, and this is the traditional definition. Tenses, such, as past and future are mutually exclusive, but in many languages present can be used with past, present and future reference, and therefore is no tense. I define aspect as the relationship between reference time and event time, and this means that aspect represents non-deictic time while tense represents deictic time. We should not be satisfied with the mentioned aspectual definition, but try to find the essence of aspect. In order to do that I have developed three parameters related to the intersection of event time by reference time by which to analyze aspect: the quality of focus, the angle of focus, and the breadth of focus. Because there are two aspects, we can by the help of the three parameters compare aspects in different languages in six different areas. A comparison of English and Hebrew aspects give the following result:

The quality of focus The angle of focus The breadth of focus
The imperfective aspect SIMILAR DIFFERENT SIMILAR
The perfective aspect SIMILAR DIFFERENT DIFFERENT


The most important area is the angle of focus, where both aspects are different in the two languages. The consequence is that English and Hebrew aspects are fundamentally different, English aspects are objective, because the imperfective aspect shows that the event *is no*t terminated at reference time while the perfective aspect indicate that the event *is* terminated at reference time. Hebrew asepcts are subjective because both aspects can refer to incomplete and completed events, to past, present, and future, and to indicative and modal events.

The last sentence does not indicate that there is linguistic anarchy in Hebrew, but rather that the aspects are not mutually exclusive, and that there are several areas where both aspects can be used without any distinction in meaning. It is the linguistic conventions that give meaning to the use of verbs. We can illustrate the case with the active participle and infinitive construct. These two forms have different meanings and different uses, but they are not mutually exclusive. Occasionally, therefore, an infinitive is used where we expect a participle, vice versa. But normally linguistic convention causes an orderly use of both.

When we communicate, we use different areas of precision. In one context it is enough to speak of "a thing," in another we use "vehicle," in a third "car," and in a fourth "Ford". The perfective and imperfective Hebrew aspects are similar in certain areas and different in others, and in in many contexts in the Tanakh there is no need to be more specific than "thing" or "vehicle," thus both aspects can be used. There may also be certain stylistic reasons for the use of both aspects. Psalm 2:1-2 is a fine example of a parallellistic use of both aspects (two YIQTOLs and two QATALs). Who will say that the author wanted to to signal two different time references or two different notions by the use of the two aspects? There are hundreds of similar examples. One of the most important chapters of my thesis is the one where I analyze a lot of examples where both aspects are used with no meaning difference and lots of others where the choice of one particular aspect is important, or even mandatory in order to convey a particular thought.

Then to Psalm 107, which I once used in a book on Bible translation as an example translation problems if the traditional view of the Hebrew conjugations are followed.

As to different translations I gave the following list (P=past, Pr= present, and F=future, Q= QATAL, WQ= WEQATAL, Y= YIQTOL, WY=WAYYIQTOL, and WEY= WEYIQTOL.

NRSV P:2-20, PR: 23-42
NAB P:1-42, F: 43
ASV: P: 1-16,PR: 17-41, F: 43
NASB: P: 1-30, PR: 33-43
NIV: P: 1-41, PR: 42-43
NJB: P: 1-36, PR:37-43
NKJV: P: 1-20, PR: 23-43
RSV: P: 1-30, PR: 33-43
TEV P: 1-41, PR 42-43

We see that while the translations differ in their use of English tenses, they apply the same tense to all the verbs of particular sections of the Psalm. But look at all the different verb forms in each section:

Section 1: vv. 2-7: Q:4, WY 2, Y: 3
" 2 : vv 9-14: Q: 5, WY:2, Y: 3
" 3 : vv 16-20: Q: 2, WY:2, Y: 4,WEY: 2
" 4 : vv 23-30: Q: 1, WY: 7, Y: 8, WEY:1
" 5: vv: 33-43 Q: 1, WY:12, Y: 4, WEY:3

The traditional four-component model causes linguistic anarchy, but the two-component model (YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, and WEYIQTOL all represent the imperfective aspect, and QATAL and WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect) with the dfinition of aspect outlined above, can explain everything without any problems.

So to verses 19-20 that you ask about. I interpret the verbs like this:

19. the WAYYIQTOL- imperfective "they began calling",
19. the YIQTOL: (1) "he saved them," or (1) "he caused them to be saved," or (3) "he always saved them". the imperfective aspect is used to expressed an action that was completed before the deictic centre. But where does reference time intersect event time? In a translation with ordinary people as the target group I would have used (1 or (3)). It is a myth that YIQTOL with past reference indicates the so-called "durative past" I would say that what is made visible by the YIQTOL either is a small part of the saving event (RT intersects ET at the nucleus (1)), or the habitual act of saving (2).

20: The one YIQTOL and the two WEYIQTOLs have the same imperfective force. I will translate either (1) "He continued to send his word and heal them, and he rescued them from the pit, or (2) "He sent his word and healed them, and he rescued them from the pit." In (1) the habitual element is stressed, and (2) does not stress anything particular. I would say that what is made visible by the YIQTOL and the first WEYIQTOL is a small part in the middle with details visible (RT intersects ET at the nucleus); the last WEYIQTOL which is in the Piel stem, may be resultative (RT intersects ET after the end).

As to the WEYIQTOLs in the past context, I take them as an example of the problems the Masoretes had when they should differentiate between WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in poetic texts. It seems to me that the Masoretes would use WAY(Y) in past contexts and WE(Y) in future and modal contexts. But when the temporal/modal reference was not clear, they often "erred" in relation to this scheme.


Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo



Dear Rolf, couldn't you simply explain, from your view, how to read this
brief passage?

Thanks, Bryan

you wrote:


Dear Bryan and others,

Those really interested in the Hebrew conjugations and the basis for
Masoretic pointing should analyze all the 43 verses of this Psalm and
compare them with modern Bible translations. Regardless of which
temporal reference one applies to the different parts of this Psalm,
> it is impossible to get a coherent picture, if the traditional view
is presumed - that WAYYIQTOL and WEQATAL are different conjugations
compared with YIQTOL and QATAL.


Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



>B-Haveray,
>
>I have a little passage here that may relate to our discussion of whether
>wayyiqtol and weyiqtol are distinct. I would be interested in your
comments
>about the use/meaning of the verb
>forms and syntax in this passage, shown translated below in the JPS
Tanakh:
>
>Psalm 107:19 In their adversity they cried (wayyiqtol) to the LORD and He
> >saved (X-yiqtol) them from their troubles. 20 He gave (yiqtol) an order
and
>healed (weyiqtol) them; He delivered (weyiqtol) them from the pits. 21
Let
>them praise (clause-initial yiqtol) the LORD for His steadfast love
>
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page