Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

Dear Bryan,

I am glad that you understand my position better, and I have some 
comments below.



> Rolf, thanks for your reply.  I really feel that I understand your model
> better now than ever, mostly as a result of your comments about Psa
> 107:19-20 specifically.
>
> You wrote:
>
> <noted and snipped>
>
> >  So to verses 19-20 that you ask about. I interpret the verbs like this:
> >
> >  19. the WAYYIQTOL- imperfective "they began calling",
> >  19.
>
> For years now--can you believe how time flies?-- this has been a difficult
> feature of your model for me to swallow: that a wayyiqtol that you alledge
> to be imperfective is used most often in a context that features the advance
> of time.  In my understanding of aspect, the advance of time would favor, if
> not require, a perfective form.  But I may be understanding you.  Let me see
> if I can explain, in your view, how an imperfective form can be used in a
passage where story time advances.

> Wayyiqtol refers to a situation that obtains (essentially saying that it
> begins) but the verb form doesn't by itself indicate anything about the
> situation's completion.  The verb form leaves, in and of itself, the
> situation open on the anterior end, because it is imperfective.  Then, in a
> text, along comes the next wayyiqtol, a new beginning.  A new beginning
> usually (but not necessarily) *implies* the ending of the previous
> situation.  IOW, one situation is now usually *inferred* to be complete
> simply because a new one has obtained or begun.

Given the traditional definition of perfectivity and imperfectivity I 
agree that we would expect perfective verbs in past narrative, as you 
describe it above.  However, I neither accept "incomplete" as a 
definition of the imperfective aspect, nor "complete" or "completed" 
for the perfective one. These are vague generalizations which does 
not fit hundreds, or even thousands of verbs, and scholars are just 
using these definitions without systematically having studyied the 
very nature of aspect.

Mary Broman Olsen is an exception, and her work with the English 
verbal system is excellent; she accounts for the whole system by the 
interplay of three fundamental factors, the deictic centre, event 
time, and reference time. In other words, she accounts for the whole 
system by describing the interplay of tense and aspect, without 
seeking recourse in the so-called relative tenses. This is excellent, 
because she has used fundamental linguistic concepts to explain tense 
and aspect, and she has not just given vague definitions which is not 
linked to such concepts!  She also shows how Comrie goes wrong, but 
she herself errs because she claims that her model is universal. What 
I have done is, on the basis of the mentioned fundamental concepts, 
which stems from Reichenbach (1949), and which Comrie and Olsen uses 
(though Olsen clarifies them), to develop a model for a deeper 
analysis of the mentioned concepts. In this way the vagueness of the 
traditional views of the concept "aspect" vanishes, and aspect can 
now be defined by help of the fundamental linguistic factors, though 
language specific.

In order to *illustrate* how imperfective verbs (imperfectivity 
defined by the intersection of ET by RT) can be used in narrative, 
without being strange at all, I give two examples below. I translate 
without trying to mark simultaneous action, and I note the Hebrew 
verb forms.

(1) and seven priests carrying (part) seven rams' horns walked (part+ 
inf. abs) before the ark; and they blew (WEQATAL) their horns. And 
the war-equipped men went (part) ahead of them, and the rear guard 
followed (part) the ark of YHWH, and they blew (part+inf. abs) on the 
horns. Josh 6:13

(2) And Moses got up (WAYYIQTOL) and went (WAYYIQTOL)  to Datan and 
Abiram, and the older men of Israel went (WAYYIQTOL) with him. 
Numbers 16:25

Examples (1) and (2) are not typically narrative with one action 
following when the previous is completed. But the examples are quite 
similar in nature and can be used to illustrate my point.

All the finite and infinite verbs have past reference. The usual 
explanation of the WAYYIQTOLs of (2) is that each represent 
punctiliar (perfective) past events, and that his is signalled by 
each *form*. But what about the two participles and two 
participles/inf. abs. of (1), all having past reference, and the 
events being terminated at speech time (the deictic centre)? Why can 
we say that they have past reference and that their actions were 
terminated? On the basis of the form? No! But on the basis of the 
context! Where does reference time intersect event time in the 
infinite forms of (2)? In the two examples of part/inf. abs. I would 
say that a small part in the middle is intersected or made visible; 
they were walking and they were blowing, and given the nature of the 
participle, I would say that the same is the case with each of the 
single participles: a small part of the walking event is made visible 
by the form, but the end of each walking event is not made visible by 
each of the finite forms but simply by the context. Thus we have four 
examples of infinite forms which are not perfective, and which can 
portray events that objectively were past and terminated at speech 
time.

The convention of the use of finite forms does not allow them to 
generally be used in narrative contexts just as WAYYIQTOLs are used. 
But the examples above show that they *can* be used in quite similar 
contexts.  This shows that non-perfective forms can be used in such 
contexts, and that is the way I explain the WAYYIQTOLs.  The biggest 
obstacle for accepting the WAYYIQTOLs as imperfective is the 
traditional definition of imperfectivity and perfectivity. But if we 
accept that the Hebrew aspects are nothing more than peepholes 
through which a small or big part of the action, with or without 
details, in different angles and in different breadths are made 
visible, the use of imperfectivity in past contexts in no way is 
strange. My point, therefore, is that RT does not intersect ET at the 
coda in the WAYYIQTOLs, but at other places, such as a) before the 
beginning (conative), b) including the beginning and a small part of 
the action (ingressive), c) a small part of the action after the 
beginning and before the end, d) a small part imediately before the 
end (egressive), and e) the state after the end of the action 
(resultative). Example (3) below is conative, (4) is ingressive, (5) 
is egressive (or possibly future), and (6) is resultative.

(3) And the magicians tried to do (WAYYIQTOL) the same with their 
secret arts, in order to bring forth gnats, but they could not  (Ex 
8:14)

4) And in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of 
Israel had come out of Egypt...Solomon... began to build (WAYYIQTOL) 
the temple of YHWH. 1 Kings 6:1

(5)  They have thrown him into a cistern, and he is on the point of 
loosing his life because of the famine.  Jer 38:9

(6)  And he fell (WAYYIQTOL) on his face to the earth before the ark 
of YHWH until the evening. Joshua 7:6 (NB, the sense "fallen down" 
found in some lexicons is not a *lexical meaning* of the word but an 
aspectual one.)


> This view of wayyiqtol seems rather like that of S.R. Driver, no?

No. S.R. Driver interpreted WAYYIQTOL  as nascent, but that is just 
one of the possible alternatives I list.

> > .the use of a 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).
>
> Rolf, You seem to be accepting a difference between wayyiqtol and weyiqtol
> after all, if not a semantic difference, a pragmatic difference, that is, at
> least most of the time, *rightly coded by Masoretic pointing*.  I am
> understanding you correctly?

I use WAYYIQTOL  and WEYIQTOL  only in a graphic sense and neither in 
a semantic or even a pragmatic sense.  In my view they represent 
exactly the same form, but the Masoretes pointed some WAW+YIQTOLs 
that were used in one way as WAYYIQTOL and others used in another way 
as WEYIQTOLs.  In my view there are just two hebrew conjugations.

> Thanks again, Bryan
>
> >

Best regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> From furuli AT online.no  Sat Mar 13 13:02:41 2004
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail45-s.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECCE2001D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:02:41 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [80.213.45.58] (ti200710a080-1342.bb.online.no [80.213.37.62])
        by mail45-s.fg.online.no (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10842
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:02:40 +0100 
(MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a05111b01bc78fbc2fc6c@[80.213.45.58]>
In-Reply-To: <4052F7F0.7030602 AT qaya.org>
References: <015e01c40843$08fb1440$0302a8c0@brocine>
        <a05111b04bc778ce9fc49@[80.213.46.88]>
        <000d01c4085b$892c8960$0302a8c0@brocine>
        <a05111b05bc77d2b758af@[80.213.46.88]> <4052F7F0.7030602 AT qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:00:54 +0100
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: furuli AT online.no
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:02:42 -0000

Dear Peter,

Your post has  many misunderstandings of my position, and I would 
need a very long post to answer them. But time is limited. I refer 
you to my answer to Bryan which covers some of your points. Just one 
comment: If you look at Broman Olsen's work, you will find a very 
fine discussion of how Comrie errs.


Best regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> On 12/03/2004 23:51, furuli AT online.no wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Rolf, I find it methodologically very strange that you attack 
> someone's definitions, especially when that someone is generally 
> recognised as the leading scholar in the field and author of the 
> definitive work on it. Comrie's definition of aspect is not the same 
> as yours, but it does have the clear benefit that according to it 
> "the perfective and imperfective aspects are mutually exclusive" 
> whereas yours does not have this very convenient feature - which 
> makes your definition seem to me "vague" i.e. lacking in descriptive 
> and analytical power. Also, Comrie's definition is an excellent 
> description of aspect in Russian and one which fits well also with 
> observed features of English, Greek and many other languages. As 
> such it is a very powerful tool for analysis and understanding of 
> language.
>
> Now I accept that a priori this definition is not necessarily going 
> to be the most helpful one for analysis of Hebrew, and so we need to 
> study Hebrew for what it is and not assume that it fits well with 
> Comrie's categories. As a result we may come up with different 
> distinctions which are more helpful for Hebrew, and this is what you 
> claim to have done. But this is no reason for attacking Comrie as 
> "vague and wrong". Just because his definition does not apply to 
> Hebrew, that does not make it "vague and wrong". Also, because 
> Comrie's definition of aspect is the one accepted and used by most 
> linguists, you simply cause confusion by trying to redefine a 
> commonly used term; better to drop the word "aspect" completely 
> (having demonstrated that according to Comrie's definition it is not 
> useful for Hebrew) and invent a new terminology.
>
> > ...
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> The problem here is that you have been locked by your linguistic 
> theory into an unrealistic dichotomy. On your theory, if I 
> understand it correctly, if a distinction between two forms is 
> semantically significant, it is uncancellable and so must maintain 
> this distinction in 100% of cases. If even in only 0.1% of cases one 
> form is used where the other is expected, you take that as proof 
> that there is no semantic distinction, and so that the difference 
> between the two forms is merely "linguistic convention" with no 
> semantic significance. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood 
> your position.)
>
> But this position is unrealistic for the study of real language. 
> Firstly, even the strongest semantic distinctions are not maintained 
> 100%, especially in poetic language. Normal rules may be broken for 
> poetic and figurative effect, or just to fit the metre or rhyme. 
> There may be dialect and diachronic variation. Authors may simply 
> make mistakes (and so may copyists, in the case of an ancient text). 
> Secondly, the semantic distinctions may be more subtle than we 
> realise, so that there are real reasons why an unexpected form is 
> encountered; and in an ancient language like Hebrew, with a limited 
> corpus and no native speakers to work with, it may simply be 
> impossible for us to recover the truly semantic reasons for an 
> apparently anomalous form. Therefore we need to abandon this 100% 
> rule and accept that a few counter-examples do not disprove a rule, 
> and specifically that distinctions may be truly semantic even if 
> they seem to be ignored in some cases.
>
> The consequence of your approach to Hebrew is that, because there 
> are almost no rules in Hebrew which are followed 100%, by your 
> method of analysis there are no semantic distinctions in Hebrew, but 
> only "linguistic convention". This is of course a nonsense, as the 
> Hebrew speakers had to have some way to make semantic distinctions 
> in what they said. It also leaves the door open for you to interpret 
> the text in an entirely subjective way, because you accept no 
> semantic distinctions which can be used to control or falsify your 
> understanding. So, it seems, the predictions of your theory are 
> unfalsifiable, which in my opinion makes them valueless.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/