Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Again see below.

[snip]

 In Phoenician texts the infinitive
> absolute is
> the narrative verb, but that does not make it perfective or preterit.

Do you have references to secondary literature here: I would really like
to look at this.


[snip]


>  > 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.

You didn't actually answer my question: again, how can forms that have a
primarily temporal value represent both aspects?



> 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.

OK. I'm having to rush here as I have other things to do than write emails!

1. Evidence for past-perfective qatal comes from its use in
non-paratactic constructions where its default use is anterior (cf
Zevit's monograph). Gnomic statements, prophetic perfect, and
performatives can all be viewed in a past-perfective view (cf Rogland). 
Assuming, then, default past-perfective semantics for qatal,
neutralisation can occur:

a) past imperfective qatal in constructions or contexts requiring a past
tense (eg Gen 38:9; Num 11:8; 21:9; Jud 2:18; 6:3; 2 Kgs 18:4).

b) qatal in balanced clauses (again, see the Cristofaro reference from
my previous email on this phenomenon). For example weqatal following an
interrogative involving yiqtol in an interrogative sentence (eg Exod
2:7; 1 Sam 23:2). The past tense meaning of qatal has been neutralised
in the paratactic construction as the two clauses have been integrated
into a single construction: the tense of qatal has thus been neutralised
by the construction as a whole, ie by the preceeding interrogative and
non-past verb form which has scope over the entire construction. This
is, mutatis mutandis, the same with weqatal following volitives (cf
Dallaire; Diehl).

c) qatal in future clauses (eg Ruth 2:21). Either the past tense is
neutralised or the verb functions as a relative past (ie anterior).

2. past perfective wayyiqtol can have perfective aspect neutralised if
the context requires (this is rare, at least in our texts) (eg Num
10:35; 1 Sam 1).

3. future-imperfective yiqtol can also be neutralised:

a) imperfective aspect can be neutralised in future perfective
predications (eg Gen 18:11).

b) past tense can be neutralised for the preference of the expression of
imperfective aspect (eg Gen 2:10; 29:2).

The multifunctionality apparent in the verbal system is due to the
limited forms. But more forms are not necessary in Hebrew in order to
achieve sucessful communication as the tense or aspect of the forms can
be neutralised for the expression of the desired remaining
non-neutralised value. In this way, qatal is a past-perfective verbal
form and yiqtol is a (present-)future-imperfective etc.

[snip]


> RF:
> While the very general distinction complete(d)/incomplete often is usedin
> 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.

The fact remains, despite your attempt to muddy the notion of "aspect"
with a dated reference, that other languages have been sucessfully
analysed without a redefinition, while your analysis of Hebrew requires
one.


Hoping the above might help you to position my position.

Sincerely,
David Kummerow.