Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Vadim,

After looking at hundreds of swans, one may develop the hypothesis that all 
swans are white. If the person travels around the world and looks at hundreds 
of thousands of swans and all are white, has the hypothesis been proven? Not 
at all! Hundreds of thousands of confirmatory examples do not prove anything, 
but one black swan who has not been dyed or has been through a fire will 
falsify the hypothesis. This is the consequence of what is called "the 
problem of induction".

The lesson to learn is that in a research material there is som bias, i.e. we 
cannot just rely on statistics, but we must ask if there are factors that 
influence the results we get.  For example, it is believed that the WAYYIQTOL 
tend to use the short form of the verb and the YIQTOL the long form. Yet, 73% 
of all WAYYIQTOLs are long. Where is the bias? Because of morphology and 
phonological factors most of these 73% simply cannot be shortened. So, a 
study of all WAYYIQTOLs shows that the short form is used by WAYYIQTOLs in 
most cases where it can be used but not in all such cases.

An assymetry in a material must be researched, but we cannot at the outset 
draw any conclusions on the basis of a particular assymetry. In connection 
with the classical Hebrew verbs, a very important question to study in order 
to find any bias is the syntactic role of the conjunction WAW.  Can the 
functions and nature of WAW  alone explain the WAY- of WAYYIQTOL or the WE- 
of WEQATAL. And a very important methodological question is this: Is an 
assumption behind my research that Hebrew has a particular number of 
conjugations, four, three, or two? For example, If we use the axiom that 
Hebrew has four conjugations, then we end up with four. In addition to 
looking for prejudice in the material, we need to be conscious of our own 
prejudices. I would say that to come to grips with Hebrew verbs, it is 
necessary to start without any assumptions as to the numbers of conjugations 
in Hebrew.  I would also say that one needs to study all, or most of the 
verbs of classical Hebrew to have the right foundation to draw conclusions. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Vadim Cherny 
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
  Cc: Peter Kirk ; furuli AT online.no 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:09 PM
  Subject: tenses; frequency


  Possibly, a significant argument in favor of tenses is that the exceptions 
are asymmetrical. There are few cases of past tense employed for the future 
reference, while much more - of the future tense employed for the past 
reference. I don't have the statistics, but, Rolf, correct me if necessary.

  If there were no tenses, but only aspects, we would expect about the same 
number of exceptions on each side: qatal/wayiqtol for the future, and 
weqatal/yiqtol for the past.

  If the exceptions are indeed asymmetrical in the way I described, then it 
is due to the emphatic shift of the reference point back in the time - people 
re-live past, not future events. Forward shift of the reference point (yiqtol 
for the past) would mostly occur in visions, and so be very rare.

  Vadim Cherny


  Best regards

  Rolf Furuli
  University of Oslo
>From furuli AT online.no  Tue Aug  9 17:07:01 2005
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail43.e.nsc.no (mail43.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.43])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4363A4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  9 Aug 2005 17:07:01 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from ttttt (ti200710a080-5115.bb.online.no [85.164.147.251])
        by mail43.nsc.no (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j79L707T000840
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 23:07:00 +0200 
(CEST)
Message-ID: <001101c59d26$4d5373c0$0e44fea9@ttttt>
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: 
<!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAYLng/8MdvEamFJ3Riz9dJsKAAAAQAAAAD//fT3FzUUesmxkLKfbqjwEAAAAA AT mcmaster.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:07:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tenses and aspects; was: footnotes
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:07:01 -0000

Dear Ken,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>
To: "'Rolf Furuli'" <furuli AT online.no>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Tenses and aspects; was: footnotes


>I wrote:
>
>> > It seems to me that Rolf calls ... any relationship between the
>> > deictic centre (the time of the communication, which is normally the
>> > speech time) and the time of the event "tense". ... Marion Johnson's
> work supports Rolf's usage
>> > here, but it has not yet become standard.
>
> Rolf replied:
>
>> ... tense is the relationship between
>> reference time (NB, not the event time) and the deictic center.
>
> Right. My mistake. In Johnson's terms Tense is S:R, Aspect is R:E, and
> Status is S:E (where S=speech time, R=reference time, and E=event time).
>
> I do think that even after reading the basic works on tense and aspect,
> there is room for confusion regarding the terms "reference time", "deictic
> centre", and "aspect". Comrie noted the inconsistent use of terms in the
> literature, yet he himself added to the confusion at times. And I do not
> think Mari Broman Olsen's work is the place to learn what is standard
> usage.

I basically agree with your last paragraph. Of the terms, I think that
"deictic center" and "event time" are easy to grasp with just a little
study. The concept "reference time" is more elusive, and in my view, Broman
Olsen definitely has the best explanation of this concept.

Good researchers do some thinking themselves, and therefore I am not very
happy with those why rely on "standard usage" (I do not think that you do,
because you have your own approach, but you mention it) or look at degrees
or credentials as evaluation criteria for scientific studies. For example,
Comrie is seen as one of the great names in tense/aspect research. Yet, as
you say, his discussion is confusing; he particularly does not distinguish
between Aktionsart and aspect. Broman Olsen is not not a great name,
although she is a fine linguist. Yet, she has some very clear thoughts.
Particularly am I impressed by the ability of her model to account for the
whole English verbal system solely on the basis of the relationship between
tense and aspect, i.e by the relationship between reference time and the
deictic center and between reference time and event time. This is a much
more systematic and thoroughgoing approach than the one used by Comrie

The concept "aspect" is the most difficult to understand. One reason is that
it never is adequately defined in Semitic scholarly literature, and almost
always it is assumed that aspect is the same in all aspectual languages.
That is the reason why I have done an indepth study of the very concept and
have developed three new parameters that can be used to compare aspects in
different languages. I would say that those who rely on what *the standard*
textbooks and grammars say regarding aspect will be confused. But Broman
Olsen is different.
>
> Ken Penner
> Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Aspect), M.A. (Hebrew
> Poetry)
> Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
> pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
> Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join
>
Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo