Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> It seems that we use the word "tense" in different ways. I use Comrie`s
> definition of tense: "tense is the grammaticalization of location in
time". This means
> that tense is an intrinsic part of the verb form and is independent of the
> context. A term covering a broader area is "temporal reference". When I
say
> that a verb has past reference, I do not say whether this is due to an
> intrinsic property of the verb itself or whether it is constured on the
> basis of the context.
>

oh-oh. I think, you play with the term "context." When Chinese say
"yesterday we go movie", "yesterday" makes unambigous temporal reference,
not in any sense different from the past tense. "Yesterday" is an unambigous
context, as are other adverbs. But you often mean a very different
"context," which is actually a broad and dubious interpretation of the text.

So, let us distinguish adverbial context - which indeed establishes temporal
reference or, the same thing here, tense, and "exegetical context",
frivolous interpretation, which, if assumed, can establish anything.

>  I have never said that the writers of classical Hebrew did not care about
the temporal reference of
> events and states.  To the contrary, I have stressed that time played an
> important role for them. My point. however, is and has been that the
context
> (including adverbials) was used to signal the temporal references.
>

How often do you rely on adverbs, the proper context, as opposed to the
exegetical context? Very rarely, I guess.
How often Hebrew verbs are employed without adverbs? Say, 99% of the time?
Doesn't that mean beyond any doubt that Hebrews didn't rely on adverbial
temporal reference?

> > Regarding the tenses and aspects, I posted a question before, and here
> > repeat the challenge: let anyone offer a single example (ok, besides
> > perhaps a few grammatical errors) of a verb which is meaningless in its
tense and
> > is only meaningful if it has aspect. Something like "yesterday he will
say."
> > I contend there are no such entries in Tanakh, and all the thousand
entries
> > that Rolf collected for aspects that are clearly not tenses, are clear
> > only in the light of his preconceptions.
>
> I think you misunderstand the nature of aspect and temporal reference; the
> situation is not "either this or that" but "both this and that". I would
say
> that the context tells the readers whether an event occurs before the
> deictic center (past reference) or after it (future reference), and the
> conjugations (the aspects YIQTOL, QATAL ...) make visible a part of and
the
> quality of the verbal action that  the context has fixed as past or
future. So your challenge does not
> work, becuse its premise is that there is something called tense in
Hebrew,
> and tense and aspect are mutually exclusive properties.
>

Nope. My premise is that you intentionally disregard Hebrew morphological
tense to reintroduce tense through your "exegetical context" and make the
text comply with your preconceptions.

My contention is clear and simple: Hebrew has no morphological aspect, but
tense. Every Tanakhic word could and should be read exactly according to its
tense, and makes perfect sense without the aspect tricks. We amply discussed
this in relation to Isaiah 53, when you changed the clear and meaningful
tenses to comply with your interpretation.

> 1) "And he spoke (WAYYIQTOL) to her.: `Because I spoke (YIQTOL) to Naboth
> the Jezreelite and said (WAYYIQTOL)  to him...`" 1 Kings 21:6
>

See, Rolf, there are different speaking conventions. Russians can say,
"Because I *speak* to Nabot..." about the past event. Deictic center is the
meeting with Nabot. "Speak" is the present tense, no aspects.
Or, "Each time, as *I will meet* Nabot, I say to him..." Now, Russian is
very, very close to Hebrew in its mode of expression. Your example is
exactly similar: it was apparently customary in Hebrew, as now in Russian,
to use future tense with "as," "because," etc for past reference.
When you read English phrase "Every time I meet Nabot, I say to him...", you
understand this as past reference - yet you don't dispute that "meet" is a
present tense, or that English has tenses.
"Because + future tense" has a second, idiomatic meaning in Hebrew and in
Russian. This is an exception to the rule of tenses.

> 2) "And Zebul said (WAYYIQTOL) to him:`Where is your big talk now, you who
> said (YIQTOL)..." Judg 9:38
>

Exactly the same in Russian: "and you, who would say so-and-so," meaning the
past reference.
Sometimes in milspeak phonetical rules are twisted. This doesn't make the
phonetical rules non-existent, but only mark an understandable exception.
Likewise, sometimes deictic center is emphasized, and future used for past
reference.

> 3) "In the place where it was said (YIQTOL) to them, `You are not my
> people,` it will be said (YIQTOL) to them, `The sons of the living God`"
> Hosea 1:9 (10).

Here we might have straight future tense, "In a place where it will be said
to them this, later it will be said to them that."

Vadim Cherny