Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Basic observations on WAYYIQTOL]

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Basic observations on WAYYIQTOL]
  • Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:34:51 +0100

Dear James,

I am happy to respond to your questions. I changed the place of your
paragraph 2 and 3 below, because the answer to 3 helps understand my answer
to 2.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Basic
observations on WAYYIQTOL
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:18:28 +0100
From: Read, James C <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
CC: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>



Thanx for that Rolf. It seems that the root of the major misunderstanding
between Rolf
and Peter is a lack of commonly defined terminology. I think you have
clearly defined
your use of the term 'semantic meaning with this post.

What is your view on the sequentiality of wayyiqtols? Is sequentiality the
uncancellable
semantic meaning of wayyiqtols or is this a pragamtic feature which is best
left to context?

What is your view on the sequentiality of wayyiqtols? Is sequentiality the
uncancellable
semantic meaning of wayyiqtols or is this a pragamtic feature which is best
left to context?

RF:

The sequentiality of WAYYIQTOLs illustrates in an excellent way the fallacy
of stressing quantity rather than quality, or in other words, to fail to
distinguish between semantics and pragmatics. There is no question that most
WAYYIQTOLs are sequential, but the important question (which seldom is asked)
is Why? And the answer is very simple: These WAYYIQTOLs occur in narrative
contexts, and narrative is by definition sequential; one event follow the
previous event. This means that *any* verb form that is used in narrative
contexts must be sequential, not because sequentiality is an intrinsic
property, but because of the nature of narrative accounts. For example, in
Phonician, the infinitive absolute is the form used in narratives, but noone
would say that sequentiality or past tense is a property of the verb form
itself.

In his book "Tense" (1985) Bernard Comrie discusses the fallacy mentioned
above in connection with relative tense (but the principle is valid for
absolute tense as well):

"In looking for examples of relative time reference, it is essential to
ensure that the relative time reference interpretation is part of the meaning
of the form in question, rather than an implicature derived from, in part,
the context. One area which is particularly confusing in this respect is
narrative, where one gains the impression of a sequence of events which are
located temporally one almost immediately after the other, the chronological
sequence mirrored in the linear order of clauses. Thus one might be tempted
to think that this sequencing is part of the meaning of the verb forms used,
thus introducing a meaning of 'immediate past' or 'immediate future' relative
time reference (depending on whether one defined the time reference of the
preceding verb in terms of the following verb, or vice versa). However, as
was shown in section 1.8, this sequencing of events is a property of
narrative itself, quite independent of verb forms used to encode narrative,
so that the mere fact that verb forms receive this interpretation in
narrative is not sufficient evidence for assigning this meaning to those verb
forms. Indeed, crucially one would need to look for examples outside of
narrative, where the context does not force the immediate succession
interpretation, to demonstrate that this is actually part of the meaning of
the form in question."



One thing I did not understand though is your view of the 998 wayiqtols
that do not
express past action. Are you saying these are exceptions to the norm? Are
you saying
they do or do not have an uncancellable semantic meaning?

RF:

Comrie suggested that to find the true properties of verbs used in
narrative contexts on has to look at the same verbs outside narratives. In my
study I have analysed all the WAYYIQTOLs in the Tanakh, and the 998
WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference occur outside narratives. Regarding the
about 13,000 WAYYIQTOLs occurring in narrative contexts we can know nothing
regarding tense or aspect, because these are covered by the strict form of
the narratives. But that is not the case with those occurring outside
narratives. Thus, the 998 mentioned WAYYIQTOLs can tell us the true nature of
this verb form. My analysis shows that these verbs represent past, present,
and future, and completed, and uncompleted actions. Therefore, the WAYYIQTOL
form neiter has tense nor aspect (in the tranditional definition of the verb).

In my view, all WAYYIQTOLs have the same meaning, including the 998 with
non-past reference, and they represent the impeerfective aspect (defined
differently compared with the usual definition). When I found these 998
WAYYIQTOLs, it would have been be just as fallacious to use them as evidence
as it is to use the narrative WAYYIQTOLs as evidence, without testing them.
So, I had to test them and see whether they occurred in special contexts,
such as hypothetical conditional sentences etc., thus. being exceptions. I
found that almost all of these verbs occur in normal contexts, and therefore
I could use them as evidence. So, the 998 WAYYIQTOLs are not exceptions, but
their non-past references show that the WAYYIQTOL form is not a preterit, and
the fact that they express both incomplete and uncompleted actions shows that
they do not represent any aspect in the traditional sense of the word.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page