Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
  • Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:06:55 -0000

Dear David,

I start with a few questions: Do you agree with Comrie that some languages
do not have tenses (grammaticalized location in time), such as Burmese?
If you do, you agree that the narrative form in such a language does not
represent past tense. So I ask: Why should it be impossible that the
narrative form in such a language should be imperfective? To apply this to Hebrew I ask; Why canĀ“t WAYYIQTOL be in imperfective form? Is there anything in the texts we have which would forbid that?

We may perhaps differ as to the definition of tense. We agree that grammaticalisation processes may occur in a language over time: A particular verb form becomes more and more restricted as to it use until it only is used in one way, for example having only past reference. At that point first the form represent "grammaticalised location in time". It seems that you do not accept this definition, since you speak of "the dominant use" as evidence for tense. For example, the English verbs "went" and "spoke" have an intrinsic past tense and the forms are grammaticalised location in time. Past reference is not "the dominant use" of "went" and "spoke," it IS their use. In hypothetical conditional clauses and some other special clauses the verbs can be used in a non-past context, but their past reference is non-cancellable.

The "dominant use" of a verb does not tell much without a careful analysis. For example, it has often been argued that the basis for the WAYYIQTOL is a short prefix form, since apocopation is a characteristic of the WAYYIQTOL, as you also say. But what is the "dominant use"? My analysis of all WAYYIQTOLs of the Tanakh gave the result that only 27% were apocopated, so in most cases WAYYIQTOL is long. However, a careful analysis indicates that most of the long WAYYIQTOLs cannot be apocopated because of their consonants suffixes etc. So the "dominant use" tells us little as far as semantics is concerned. Therefore, I agree that the WAYYIQTOL tend to be short when possible. In my analysis of all the finite and infinite verbs of the Tanakh I obtained the following numbers regarding past reference:

QATAL: 7,446 53.5 %
WEQATAL 357 5,9 %
YIQTOL 1,027 7.5 %
WEYIQTOL 50 4.4 %
WAYYIQTOL 13,539 93.1 %
Part act 1,739 32.7 %
Part pass 364 33.1 %
Infin con. 760 57.2 %
Infin abs 86 29.8 %

What do these numbers tell us? Very little before they are carefully analysed. In my view the "dominant use"-arguments are fallacious, since they only relate to quantity (pragmatics) and not to quality (semantics). For example, according to my analysis there are 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference, and they cannot be ignored. If these (or a reasonable numberof them, to allow differences in interpretation) have non-past reference and occur in normal contexts, the WAYYIQTOL cannot represent past tense. And similarly with the 965 (6.9 %) QATALs with future reference, they show that the QATAL do not represent past tense.

No interpretation of a dead language is final, there certainly are alternative interpretations. The good advice to the student is to look at the methodlologies behind the interpretations.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


Hi Rolf,

I do not think that it follows that "we cannot draw the conclusion that
the Hebrew WAYYIQTOL is a past tense or is perfective on the basis of
its function." To me it only shows that the issue is complex in
Phoenician regarding the infinitive and less so for Hebrew wayyiqtol.
The conclusion you draw doesn't necessary have to follow. So I disagree:
I think we can label Hebrew wayyiqtol on the basis of its
dominant/prototypical function - narrative past tense. Regarding the
Phoenician infinitive absolute, what is its dominant function? If it is
indeed used dominantly as a past tense, then the possibility is there
for the grammaticalisation of it as Peter suggested. Also, since the
infinitive is unmarked for PNG, then it could possibly be used in
narrative as a topic-continuity construction. You see, there are other
alternatives than the outright rejection of more traditional proposals.

Regards,
David Kummerow.









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page