Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear David,

See my comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)



Hi Rolf,

I appreciate the discussion as it helps my own thinking. I, too, think
undergrad study is too "busy" to allow time for thinking. Simply too
much "assessment". In recent years, at least at the institution I teach
at, it has gotten even worse. I'm glad I passed through when I did.

A few things below.


snip
> In my dissertation I demonstrate that Rainey, who is an excellent scholar,
> is guilty of the fallacy that is so common among scholars when aspect and
> tempus of verb forms are considers, namely, to fail to distinguish between
> semantic and pragmatic factors. In other words, he draws semantic
> conclusions on the basis of pragmatices.

I'm not sure what you are driving at in criticising conclusions draw
from pragmatics. What you say in the paragraph below seems semantic to
me anyway.

> As a proof that the YAQTULU (IPARRAS) form implies
> continuous action Rainey quotes a clause where the verb form occurs
> together
> with the adverbial
> "day and night" ("Day and night I am heeding the words of the king, my
> lord.") He fails to see that it is the adverb that indicates the
> continuance
> or iterativity of the action and not the verb. I demonstrate that by using
> the words of Enki in his sorrow over the death of Gilgamesh: "Day and
> night
> I wept over him."  The verb form here is ABKU, which is an IPRUS (YAQTUL)
> form, and the continuance or itertivity is of course caused by the
> adverbial.  In other instances Rainey distinguishes between semantics and
> pragmatices, e.g., in his excellent grammar (1996, II, p. 231) when he
> argues that the final -u in singular prefix verbs in the Amarna letters is
> not the Akkadian
> subjunctive -u but "a West-Semitic indicator of indicative imperfect".

OK, so iterativity might be constructional, involving a [verb + adverb].
But can ANY verb be used here in the iterativity construction, or is it
only a prefix verb (ie [prefix verb + adverb]) (I'd have to do some
research here, perhaps you know offhand?). In any case, there might
remain a difference between yaqtulu and yaqtul in the different
constructions: the second could be referring to a past action (hence
yaqtul) and the first to the present-future (hence yaqtulu). In Hebrew I
think wayyiqtol is used in iterative contexts; cf 1 Sam 1.

I certainly agree that more, and better, work needs to be done on
constructions and their meanings.

RF:
The concept iterativity works well in English, because it is a living
language.
But it is very problematic in Hebrew, because punctiliarity is so difficult
to pinpoint, and because so many clauses have a resultative force. I used it
to avoid unnecessary discussions of details. But in my view both Rainey´s
and my example make visible actions in progression, actions that continued
over time. I would say that any Hebrew, Canaanite, and Akkadian finite and
infinite verb can be used to portray a situation in progression. But there
are of course preferences. So my point is that a very widespread error in
verb interpretation is to conclude that the semantic meaning of a verb is
the same as the meaning of the clause in which it occurs. For example, the
least likely place to find the meaning of WAYYIQTOL is in narrative texts,
simply because the verbs used per definition must have past reference (but
not necessarily past tense).  In Phoenician texts the infinitive absolute is
the narrative verb, but that does not make it perfective or preterit.


> We radically differ here,
>  > because I don't see the answer receiving resolution in the direction of
>  > semantically equating wayyiqtol and (we)yiqtol (in my opinion, I do
>  > think you are right concerning (we)qatal). That is, I don't think
>  > wayyiqtol and yiqtol are semantically similar at all. The clustering of
>  > meanings or prototypical uses are on opposite ends of the spectrum:
>  > wayyiqtol is prototypically past perfective; yiqtol is future
>  > imperfective. But because we operate from different theoretical
>  > positions, exceptions for you will nullify such a conclusion (which
> has,
>  > I assume, prompted your long course of research?) whereas for me they
>  > are entirely acceptable (too many exceptions though would call the
>  > account into question).
>
> I respect your disagreement with me.  In this case I endorse the Words of
> Waltke/O´Connor p. 460 "How can forms, each of which "represent" all three
> English major tenses have a primarily temporal value?"

Yes, but the same question can be levelled at the aspectual view: how
can forms that have a primarily temporal value represent both aspects?

RF:
As Dahl knows, Modern Burmese does not have grammaticalized tenses, but 
those speaking it
are just as much concerned with past, present, and future time as we are.
Therefore, they have ways to express this by other means than by the use of
tenses. I would argue that the same is true in classical Hebrew, and Hebrew
aspects together with the other parts of the clauses are excellent tools to
express time.

DK:
Your answer is to modify the definition of aspect (and also to equate
wayyiqtol with (we)yiqtol and all the other necessary things (eg the
hypthesis regarding way-) in order to acheive this). The reason in my
view is that the prototypical tense and aspectual values of a particular
verb can be neutralised in certain constructions or is constructionally
dependent (I can provide a bit of evidence when I find a bit more time
if you like).

RF:
I welcome evidence in order to understand what you mean by "neutralization".
For example, in hypothetical conditional clauses in English verbs can be
used differently from their use in main clauses, but I would not say that
the tense is neutralized. The verb forms "went" and "came" are preterits in
any clause.


> To achieve resolution you have had to create a
>  > new breed of aspect unique to Hebrew (correct me please if I am wrong
> in
>  > stating this). This MAY be the case, but typologically it is hard to
>  > justify, and so I am reluctant to move off from a position which
> doesn't
>  > have to create new categories that cross-linguistically seem to be
>  > questioned since Hebrew stands alone. To me we can operate with tense
>  > and aspect as normally understood and read and comprehend Hebrew.
>
> Here I think you are very wrong!  I say that, not to to devalue your
> knowledge (you are well read and appear to have a very fine knowledge of
> Semitic languages), but in order to let the list members see the
> importance
> of considering cross-linguistic questions.

DK:
Then I would not call it "aspect" what you have found. Aspect is a
cross-linguistic semantic universal relevant in the discription and
explanation of some languages. (Some languages don't even verbally
express tense OR aspect; cf.
http://www.ling.su.se/staff/oesten/recycled/Languageswithoutta.pdf.) It
may not be relevant to Hebrew, but I think it is to some degree (just
not central).

Since the category of "aspect" hasn't needed to be redefined in the
description of numerous languages (cf. Dahl's works etc), then the
supposedly needed modification in Hebrew is flagged as doubtful. This
does not mean that Hebrew may not be unique, but that one has to be very
careful in describing features of typological uniqueness. The fact that
a redefinition is necessary means we should either be cautious of
"aspect" in general or either the uniqueness of the Hebrew account.
Again, I would say that the redefinition calls for a new label.

RF:
While the very general distinction complete(d)/incomplete often is used in
connection with aspect, there is very much confusion as to what aspect
actually is. L. J. Brinton (1988) "The Development of English Aspectual
Systems Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles" p. 5 lists seven different
kinds of aspects under the heading "Confusion of sspect terminology". Then
he lists twenty-five different terms that have been conected with these
aspects.

Dahl has lectured in Oslo, and I have discussed aspect with him. That he
asked linguists in different languages how particular concepts he associated
with aspect worked in their languages does not prove that aspect is the same
in all aspectual languages. The concepts "reference time" and "event time"
that I use represent the "deep structures" of aspect, to borrow a term from
Chomsky. These parameters can be used to analyze the imperfective and
perfective aspects in any aspectual language. So I think that "aspect" is
the right term to describe finite verbs in classical Hebrew.


snip
>


Thanks,
David Kummerow.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo