Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

The common view is that Hebrew lacks grammaticalized tenses, and qatal/ 
yiqtol are perfect/ imperfect. That approach guarantees ambiguous 
interpretation, and is not faultless; e.g., ostensibly imperfect yiqtol might 
refer to continuous action completed in distant past. The approach makes the 
function of waw-reversive unclear. No other language that has verb inflexions 
lacks tenses.

I suggested another approach: qatal and yiqtol are past and future tenses, 
but Hebrew (like Russian, and not completely unlike English) is very flexible 
after the deictic centre which often shifts in emphatic speech.
My definition of tenses, therefore, is that they refer to past and future off 
the deictic centre, which may shift. When deictic centre shifts back, 
narrator is mentally transposed into the past events, and may employ future 
tense to relate of the events long past from reader's viewpoint, but which 
are yet to happen from the narrator's shifted deictic centre. Likewise, a 
prophet lives the future events, and may relay them to readers in the past 
tense.
Waw-reversive, in that scenario, just reverses tenses: weqatal is archaic 
future, while wayiqtol is pseudo-archaic past.
Idiomatic usage might change the meaning of tenses in very rare cases, just 
as in other languages.

Natural sciences require three tests to accept a hypothesis:
- it should not generally contradict known facts.
- if contradictions arise, they should be explainable either as measurement 
(grammatical) errors or predictable deviations (idiomatic usage, in our 
case). Such contradictions should be no more than a few.
- when several hypothesis explain the facts, Occam's razor is employed.

My hypothesis passes the razor: its application requires no interpretation.
I don't claim grammatical errors. I would accept idiomatic usage only as 
exceedingly rare.

The real test is whether my hypothesis contradicts known facts. Thus, I ask 
Rolf:

would you please state a Tanakhic example of a verb which, in your opinion, 
does not fit my definition of Hebrew tenses?

Is there a verb in non-idiomatic Tanakhic phrase, such as:
qatal or wayiqtol that does not refer to the past (relative to the deictic 
centre), or
yiqtol or weqatal that does not refer to the future (relative to the deictic 
centre)?

If anyone could suggest a better test, please let me know, and I would gladly 
participate.

Vadim Cherny
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Sat Sep 17 16:30:29 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D074C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:30:29 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        BD5321800128
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:30:28 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 17 Sep 2005 20:30:28 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id ABF964BEB0; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:30:28 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:30:28 -0500
Received: from [71.134.70.61] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:30:28 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 71.134.70.61
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20050917203028.ABF964BEB0 AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
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: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:30:29 -0000


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 9/16/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Yitzhak:
> >
> > I was just commenting below on some presuppositions I
> > expect to find in the article you referenced in a previous
> > message. By saying "expect" leaves the door open to being
> > wrong. Let's wait for the article before arguinig (afterwards
> > argue at will).
> 
> What's the point of argument when you don't support your
> argument with evidence?
> 
Who's arguing?

...
> 
> > Let's wait for the article before arguing.
> >
> > Pray tell, what is the URL to the article?
> 
> The article is not yet available online.  When and if it is, it will be at
> the following link:
> http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/Publications_Journals_JBL.aspx
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

Thanks for the URL.

If the article gives the same arguments that you just 
did, arguments based on assumptions that cannot be 
confirmed, then I'll just have to conclude that the 
article gives speculations and no more.

Why try to prove something that is unprovable, which 
at the same time cannot be disproven?

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm