Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

Thanks, too, for the discussion. I still have trouble understanding your 
view. Do you have a website where you make your dissertation available 
for pdf download? Or an ftp server where you might be able to upload it 
for a time? Or email it to me? I would like to read your whole, indepth 
discussion rather than just emails. Anyway, a few more questions and 
clarifications below (this thread is drawing to a close).

[snip]

> RF:
> Look out for a coming Beiheft to "Zeitschrift der Deutschen 
> Morgenländischen
> Gesellschaft" where you will find a 30-page article by me regarding Hebrew
> verbs, including a new translation and discussion of the Phoenician 
> Karatepe
> inscriptions.

Congratulations on publishing in ZDMG. I'll check tomorrow to see if we 
have the issue yet.

> In forty lines of the Karatepe inscription we find 21 infinitive absolutes
> used as narrative verbs, 16 of which have a prefixed WAW.
>
> You find the text of the inscriptions in J. C.  L. Gibson (1982) "Textbook
> of
> Syrian Semitic Inscriptions" vol 3.  You can find a discussion of the role
> of infinitive absolute in M. G. A. Guzzo (1999) "Phönizisch-Punische
> Grammatik 3. Auflage, Analecta Orientalia 55.  See also the dissertation of
> Marcus, who disagree regarding the role of infinitive absolute: I. D. 
> Marcus
> (1970) "Aspects of the Ugaritic Verb in the Light of Comparative Semitic
> Grammar.  You should also take a look at C. R. Krahmalkov (2001) "A
> Phoenician-Punic Grammar". Krahmalkov presents the view that "Tense, 
> Aspect,
> and Mood in Phoenician are entirely a function of syntax, not morphology."

OK, thanks. That's a start.

> As you, I assume that a difference in morphology signals a difference in
> meaning. But if the differences can be explained on the basis of phonology
> and stress, the seemingly morphological differences are not real. In my
> view, this is the case with WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL, and therefore I see no
> semantic difference.
>
> I do not accept Galia´s view that each WAYYIQTOL has a new reference time.
> Cook demonstrated that this is not true. I would argue that it is the 
> WAW of
> the WAYYIQTOL form and not the WAYYIQTOL  itself that causes the narrative
> to move forward. In the Phoenician Karatepe inscriptions WAW does exactly
> the same, and the verb used is an infinitive absolute. Nobody would say 
> that
> this infinitive absolute has some intrinsic completedness of an intrinsic
> past tense. The infinitive absolute simply presents the verbal idea of the
> root without making visible the beginning or end or anything else. I would
> argue
> that in Hebrew the WAW  signals the events in consecution, and this WAW (as
> WAY-) is prefixed to an imperfective verb.  Thus, WAYYIQTOL is 
> imperfective!

I agree that more work needs to be done on waw. I'd like someone to look 
at waw in the light of:

Malchukov, Andrej L. "Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative 
Contrast Marking." Journal of Semantics 21 (2004): 177-198.

I think it would make for an interesting and hopefully revealing study.

Regarding the infinitive absolute used as a narrative verb, if this is 
the case then I agree that it would not express tense or aspect. 
However, if over time it remained consistently used in this way, even 
becoming to be restricted to this use, my feeling is that it would 
acquire a tense due to its consistent, restricted use. That's what 
happened with the participle in Hebrew: no one would have at first 
admitted that it was a present tense, but over time due to its 
consistent use it did (you may dispute this, I guess). But that's not 
what you say regarding wayyiqtol, even though your hypothesis is that 
due to its consistent use it aquired a different stress etc from weyiqtol.


> In Akkadian the distinction between the short IPRUS and the longer IPARRAS
> often is not easy to see. When my students do their home work, they look 
> for
> the lexical meaning of the words and for the syntax, but very often they
> have not considered whether the verb is IPARRAS or IPRUS. They feel they do
> not need that, because they can gather the temporal reference from the
> context. If you give your Hebrew students a narrative text where you have
> deleted prefixes and suffixes and only the verb roots occur, I am sure they
> will be able to translate the text and find the correct time setting. We
> simply do not need verb forms with a particular intrinsic meaning in
> narrative texts, but any verb form can be used.

I think that some nuances do require it. And direct speech even more so.

I may try the student test some time.


> But why, then, are imperfective verbs in the thousands used in Hebrew
> narratives contrary to what is normal in other languages?  I define 
> (this is
> a broad definition) the imperfective aspect as a close-up view of a small
> part of an event with details visible. This means that when the 
> imperfective
> aspect is used there are three big options (and several smaller ones)
> available regarding what is focussed upon:
>
> 1) The beginning and a small part of the action.
> 2) Progressive action after the beginning and before the end.
> 3) The end and  a resultant state.
>
> In contrast with the perfective aspect, the imperfective one cannot make
> visible both beginning and end. It is also worth noting that the
> imperfective aspect is open-ended even when the end of the event is 
> included
> in its focus, because the end of the resultant state is not seen.

OK, this is where I really have trouble comprehending, esp. option 3). 
How might you understand Ruth 1:3, for example - wayyamot - in the light 
of your theory? Option 1) doesn't really work - "he began to die". 
Option 2 doesn't really work - "continued to die". And option 3 doesn't 
really work as the verb doesn't express the end of a predication but the 
whole perfective event of the death.


> Curtius looked at Greek aspects through Slavic and German eyes, and the
> great scholars of the 19th and 20th century looked at Hebrew verbs  through
> German and English eyes. This of course can lead people astray. Modern
> people are satisfied with hearing that a person did that, and did that, and
> did that. I think the Hebrews of old in many contexts were much more
> concerned with the details of the verbal action than we are, and therefore
> they so often used the imperfective aspect (WAYYIQTOL)  in narrative texts.
> By this they made visible ingressive, progressive and resultative actions.
> Resultativity is very difficult to convey into English, but that is not the
> case with ingressiveness and progression.  Translators should therefore 
> to a
> much greter degree translate narrative verbs as "she started to...; she
> proceeded to...; she continued to...; she was...", and even in some cases
> "she tried to...; she attempted to..."
>
> [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?
>
> RF:
> I am sorry that I did not answer your question adequately. But I think that
> my words above regarding the imperfective aspect used in narratives will do
> the job. I do not agree that verb forms primarily have temporal value.

I'm sorry, too, as in my rush I wrote not what I meant; I should have 
written: how can both forms that have a primarily aspectual value 
represent both aspects? But you don't have to answer this as you've 
really answered it over the course of our discussion: you don't accept 
that they can be - but you have to modify the definition of aspect to do 
so. I'm interested to know how you might approach some of the data I 
presented below, viz. imperfective qatal and perfective yiqtol?

>  > 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.
>
> RF:
> I explain this "neutralization" differently, since there is no tense or
> temporal reference to neutralize. First one detail. The term "prophetic
> perfect" is used in most modern grammars, and it is parroted by students,
> Yet, it has absolutely no basis in reality, but the term was constructed ad
> hoc, in order to save the view that QATAL only portrayed completed actions.
> In order to demonstrate the existence of "prophetic perfect" one has to 
> show
> that there is a difference in meaning between QATALs and YIQTOLs and other
> verbs used with future reference. Nobody has tried that, and there is no
> such difference.

Yes, I agree, but that's not what Rogland does if you recall. In fact, 
he also - even though he comes from a tense-perspective - criticises 
what has often been done under the label of the "prophetic perfect". My 
point was that the details covered by Rogland under the traditional 
notion of "prophetic perfect", even if criticised, can still be viewed 
within a tense position regarding the Hebrew verb. Inter alia, Rogland 
reveals that qatal used in prophetic texts can mostly be understood as 
relative tense or as referring to the original prophetic vision - hense 
within a tense arrangement.

> I use one chapter in my dissertation to show that hundreds of YIQTOLs,
> WAYYIQTOLs, QATALs,  WEQATALs, participles, and infinitives are used in the
> Tanakh with the same meaning (the description of the static borders of
> Israel in Joshua 15-19; the 470 doublets, especially Psalm 18-2 Samuel 22;
> the excellent wife in Prov 31:10-31 etc.). In other cases particular verb
> forms are needed.  Why this situation of seemingly linguistic anarchy on on
> hand and precision on the other?  My answer is that there are different
> requirements for precision and linguisitc convention.

I agree with you last sentence.

> The difference between phonemic and phonetic transcription can illustrate
> the first point. Because a language can have different allophones of one
> phoneme, several phonetic transcriptions can be subsumed under one phonemic
> transcription.  Depending on the requirement of precision, whether we want
> to focus on the differences of sound or the differences of meaning, we
> choose a phonetic of phonemic transcription.
>
> We can apply this to Psalm 2:1,2. Here we find two QATALs and two YIQTOLs
> (including one clause-initial YIQTOL indictive). The QATALs and YIQTOLs 
> have
> different semantic meanings, but in this text the requirement of precision
> is low and this difference simply is not made visible.
Is this not because it is poetry, the alternation of verb forms used for 
poetic reasons. I continue to see these two articles as making a lot of 
sense:

Buth, Randall. "Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat." Journal for 
the Study of the New Testament 21 (1984): 67-83.

Buth, Randall. "The Taxonomy and Function of Hebrew Tense-Shifting in 
the Psalms (qātal–yiqtol–yiqtol–qātal, Antithetical Grammatical 
Parallelism)." Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 15 
(1986): 26-32.

[snip]


Regards,
David Kummerow.