Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

Hi David!

I think I understand what you're getting at. The problem is, Hebrew does not 
view time spatially, but rather the significance of actions spatially. In 
other words, it's not that the future might be 'far away' and the present 
might be 'close'. On the contrary, I see Hebrew perceiving the 'distance' of 
actions from the speaker in terms of their dramatic significance, not their 
timing. Thus, actions of greater significance are given in the QATAL, while 
actions of lesser or background significance are given in YIQTOL, etc. Of 
course, timing may come into the consideration of dramatic significance, but 
so might other factors, such as who the subject of the verb is, or the type 
of action being described.

Best regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer in Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Kummerow 
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
  Sent: 6 August 2005 4:44 pm
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs



  Hi George,

  I've done a little thinking the last few days concerning your proposal
  of a "spatial" understanding of the BH verbal system. At least in theory
  it must be admitted that it is possible, since it is indeed possible for
  a language to not make tense-aspect distinctions (see Östen Dahl,
  "Languages without Tense and Aspect," in _ Aktionsart and 
  Aspectotemporality in Non-European Languages: Proceedings from the 
  Workshop on Aspect and Aktionsart Held at the University of Zurich, June 
  23-25, 2000_ [ed. Karen H. Ebert and Fernando Zúñiga; Zürich: 
  Universität Zürich, 2001], 159-173 
  http://www.ling.su.se/staff/oesten/recycled/Languageswithoutta.pdf).

  The research that has been done on this that I can find suggests that 
  languages can make a spatial distinction in their verbal system (see, 
  eg, Ning Yu, "Spatial Conceptualization of Time in Chinese," in 
  _Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive 
  Linguistics: Slected Papers of the Bi-annual ICLA Meeting in 
  Albuquerque, July 1995_ [ed. Masako K. Hiraga, Chris Sinha, and Sherman 
  Wilcox; ASTHLS 152; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999], 
  69-84; George Lakoff, "The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason 
  Based on Image Schemas?" Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1990), 39-74; idem, 
  "The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor," in _Metaphor and Thought_ [2nd 
  ed.; ed. Andrew Ortony; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 
  202-251). But the research also seems to suggest that languages only do 
  this - maybe CAN only do this - because they firstly have a 
  grammaticalised tense system. In this way "future" can be thought of 
  "spatially" as something you can "look forward to"; the "past" as 
  something "behind"; and the "present" is at the "same location". 
  (Interestingly, for some languages the future is behind and the past is 
  in front!)

  So what this would seem to say for BH is that if the verbal system can
  be conceptualised "spatially" it can only do so because it firstly marks 
  tense.

  Regards,

  David Kummerow
  Sydney, Australia.


  > Harold (and others),
  > While it might appear so, I think there is more in Rolf's theory than 
  > merely this. I have been working (among other things) at a theory of 
  > Hebrew verbal aspect over the last few years, and hope to have a grammar 
  > ready in the next couple of years.
  > 
  > Rolf's point that Biblical Hebrew has no tense is one with which I 
  > strongly agree. The evidence strongly points in this direction. But this 
  > statement needs to be nuanced. Perhaps another way to put it is that the 
  > verbal conjugations do not speak so much about tense, but rather the 
  > reader's distance from the action. In other words, the verbs do not work 
  > on a temporal plain, but rather a spatial plain. Tense must be inferred 
  > secondarily from the spatial sphere. The way I describe it to my 
  > students is a bit like watching a play in a theatre. English verbs, 
  > which have tense, are like watching the play from your seat in the 
  > audience: you don't move, the action moves before you. Biblical Hebrew 
  > verbs, though, invite you to come onto the stage and watch the play from 
  > various vantage points.
  > 
  > Thus, WAYYIQTOL verbs present an action which is viewed as being 
  > initially 'far' from the viewer/reader, but which invites the 
  > viewer/reader to come and look at it. In this way, narrative momentum is 
  > produced, and the viewer/reader moves with the action. A QATAL verb, 
  > though, halts such narrative momentum and presents an action up close. 
  > This is not because the action of the QATAL is close in time, but 
  > because the author wants the viewer/reader to see the action as 
  > critically important. A YIQTOL verb presents an action which is quite 
  > distant from the viewer/reader, such that the action is almost seen as 
  > filling out the background or the 'set'. A WEQATAL verb is merely an 
  > 'add on' verb form and sustains the focus wherever the viewer/reader is. 
  > Thus, the verb forms are like stage directions, telling the 
  > viewer/reader 'where' the actions are occuring on the literary 'stage', 
  > rather than 'when' the actions are occuring in time.
  > 
  > The choice of verb forms has primarily to do with dramatic effect. After 
  > all, let's face it, Biblical Hebrew is great at telling a story or a 
  > poem. Timing is of secondary importance. For example, many times a 
  > YIQTOL is translated as a future tense, not because the future tense is 
  > intrinsic to it, but because the author wants the viewer/reader to see 
  > the future as 'far' from the current standpoint. On other occasions, a 
  > YIQTOL is translated as a continuous past tense because, again, the 
  > action is seen to be distant from the current standpoint. In any case, 
  > the author is trying to convey that the action conveyed by the YIQTOL, 
  > whether it be past, present, future, or a combination of these, should 
  > be seen as filling in the background or the 'set'. Thus, it's not that 
  > Hebrew verbs have no temporal connotations, but they are not intrinsic 
  > to the verb form.
  > 
  > Having said that, some work needs to be done on the various stages of 
  > the development of Biblical Hebrew. At some stage, tense came into the 
  > Hebrew language. A diachronic analysis needs to be done to see how and 
  > when the language developed and gained a tense system.
  > 
  > 
  > Best regards,
  > 
  > GEORGE ATHAS
  > Lecturer in Biblical Languages
  > Southern Cross College
  > Sydney, Australia
  > 


  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From sh AT teol.ku.dk  Mon Aug  8 05:51:54 2005
Return-Path: <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail4.ibt.ku.dk (mail4.ibt.ku.dk [130.225.116.17])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FB74C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2005 05:51:53 -0400 
(EDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:52:56 +0200
Message-ID: <83AA9A8C573B3F49909FFE6827C3F5B601BA17A9 AT ibtmail4.ibt.ku.dk.ad>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] documentary hypothesis, overview?
Thread-Index: AcWZFYv2cQO69uQTQt2Zm5GY6x7p9AC6FDvg
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Søren_Holst?= <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [b-hebrew] documentary hypothesis - D in Exodus?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:51:54 -0000

Thanks a lot for all the suggestions on the documentary hypothesis (not least 
to Yitzhak for his link to the archives -- his memory is obviously better 
than mine).

A more specific question: None of the tables I've seen yet allow any D 
material in Exodus (or anywhere in the first four books of the Pentateuch for 
that matter), but W. Johnstone in his little book on Exodus (JSOT Press 1990) 
takes this for granted (e.g. in Ex 3,13 and following), and J van Seters 
discusses it in "Those Elusive Deuteronomists", which I haven't seen yet -- 
I'm waiting for the Royal library to let go of their copy :-)

any comments?

kol tuv
Soren

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra:  Yitzhak Sapir [SMTP:yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com]
> Sendt:        4. august 2005 18:56
> Til:  Søren Holst
> Cc:   b-hebrew
> Emne: Re: [b-hebrew] documentary hypothesis, overview?
> 
> The following is a table listing Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman's assignments:
> http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/jepdr.htm
> 
> And this has been discussed before, by all involved (though some of the 
> links
> don't work and some you have to enter a name and password of "any" and "any"
> respectively to get through)
> 
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2003-January/thread.html#14615
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir