Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Dear list members,
! שלום לכם
I don't know if I said there are no tenses in Hebrew;
I do largely agree with Galia Hatav (Journal of Linguistics, november 2004).
For example, C1 gemination in noun and verb anchor the noun or verb to
"this world" => definite noun or simple past verb (point in time) (I
guess you can call wayyiqtol a tense, then); whereas yiqtol or non-C1
geminated noun are yet "undefined". Galia and I came up with that
theory independently; therefore it must be true. All credits to her of
course, she really worked it out. Her article is very strongly
recommended.
That's all the fresh stuff I can offer.
Fifty years from now, it'll be the default way of looking at BHebrew grammar. 
:)
I think it makes a lot of sense.
best regards,
Herman


2005/11/26, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>:
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Just a few more clarifications below.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> > According to B. Comrie (1985) "Tense" pp. vii, 9 is defined as
> > "grammaticalized expression of location in time".  To accept this does not
> > require that one accepts Broman Olsen?s distinction between "semantic
> > meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature". But it indicates that
> > when an author uses "temporal reference" s/he does not take any standpoint
> > as to whether it is the context or the verb form that signals the time of
> > the verb to the audience. But when "tense" is used according to Comrie?s
> > definition (and
> > I think that few linguists would disagree with him), it means that the 
> > time
> > is an intrinsic part of the verb form itself. So when you used the term
> > "tense" and at the same time said that tense "can be neutralised in 
> > certain
> > constructions" it made me wonder what you meant by "tense".
> >
>
> I accept Comrie's definition, but in accepting it I don't think it must
> box one to deny other distinctions which can be marked by the verb.
> Aspectual distinctions may still be signalled. (As an aside, Kurylowicz,
> who held to an aspectual view and who is often quoted in support of the
> aspectual view, later modified his position to say that a language only
> makes aspectual distinctions after if firstly marks tense. His view may
> be debatable, but it's interesting.)
>
> But since Hebrew is a balanced language in that dependent clauses do not
> have to contain special deranked verbs, it does allow for the
> possibility that neutralisation can occur, as in other languages. In my
> opinion this is what happens in Hebrew and neutralisation of tense and
> aspect (and probably mood) occurs. The thing that further research must
> confirm is in what constructional environments this occurs and with what
> meaning. (But, again, I realise that this is in my opinion, as some
> theoretical approaches to language reject the existence of
> constructions.) The reason I raised the issue was simply to show that
> not everyone rejects "tense" as relevent to the Hebrew verbal system.
> Although Buth in his grammar does not use the word "neutralisation", the
> data he describes with the terminology of "masking" is what I have
> called neutralisation. Again, with a system of such few verbal forms, it
> is not surprising that debate has continued as people consistently argue
> for a tense-only or aspect-only positions. The fact that the debate has
> continued means that there is probably a problem somewhere. You yourself
> have sort to resolve it in the direction of modifying the notion of
> "aspect", but I think allowing for both tense and aspect as Buth has
> done, with the allowance for "neutralisation" (or "masking") adequately
> describes the data in my opinion (we'll differ here on this).
>
> Regarding balancing vis-a-vis deranking, see pgs 54-60 of:
>
> Cristofaro, Sonia. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Sincerely,
> David Kummerow.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>